Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Page 21
DER-10 / Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
I. Summary: This guidance provides an overview of the site investigation and remediation process
for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) remedial programs
administered by the Division of Environmental Remediation (DER). These include the Inactive
Hazardous Waste Disposal Site Remedial Program, known as the State Superfund Program (SSF);
Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP); Environmental Restoration Program (ERP); and Voluntary
Cleanup Program (VCP); and certain petroleum releases.
II. Policy: DER administers the SSF, BCP, ERP, VCP and Bulk Storage Programs and provides
response to releases of petroleum. This guidance assists the user in developing and implementing
investigation and remediation projects involving contaminated sites under these programs administered
by DER. It is a separate document of the requirements for a remedial program set forth in statute and
regulation, as well as in guidance. It reflects DER’s experience and knowledge in developing and
managing the various programs for the past 25 years.
III. Purpose and Background: This guidance provides the scope of activities needed to satisfy
minimum requirements for the life-cycle of the site-specific remedial program under the SSF, BCP,
ERP, and VCP, and for certain petroleum releases. It facilitates consistent, accurate, efficient and timely
completion of remedial projects. It also contains the minimum technical activities DEC will generally
accept for projects where DER oversight, approval or acceptance is sought or mandated by law.
DER will, however, determine the acceptable minimum technical activities for a particular site upon
consideration of all the facts and circumstances of such site under the authority of applicable laws and
regulations. No provision of this guidance document should be construed to limit DER's authority to
require additional investigation and/or remediation based upon site-specific conditions. Sections 1.1 and
1.2 present the scope and applicability of this guidance document in more detail.
No provisions of this guidance, however, should be construed to alter the requirements of the Navigation
Law or Environmental Conservation Law, or any regulation or order or permit having the force of law.
This guidance does not replace or supersede protocols established for emergency spill response actions,
emergency drum removal actions, and other such events requiring immediate responses and follow-up.
In such time-critical situations, existing guidance established pursuant to applicable emergency response
laws, regulations and policy, and directives of the on-scene DEC Spill Responder or Project Manager
must be followed.
V. Procedure: This guidance assists the user in developing and implementing investigation and
remediation projects under the above described programs administered by DER. This guidance is
attached as a separate document and included herein by reference. A summary of topics addressed by
each chapter are provided below.
Chapter 1 provides general information, establishes the basic “rules-of-the-game” for utilizing the
guidance, and includes issues which are common to many elements of a remedial program.
Chapter 2 describes the minimum quality assurance guidelines and criteria for sampling and laboratory
analysis activities. The guidance provided in Chapter 2 applies to various sampling and analytical
activities associated with projects or project phases outlined in subsequent chapters.
Chapters 3 through 6 present technical guidance addressing each of the investigative and remedial steps
that should be undertaken at contaminated sites toward fulfillment of the remedial program goals and
objectives, from identifying a site to its eventual long term management and close out. This follows an
iterative process, which begins in Chapter 3 with an assessment of environmental conditions at the site
based on the review of existing sources of information and preliminary field investigations (Site
Characterization) and progresses through the detailed and focused site investigation (Remedial
Investigation).
Chapter 4 addresses remedy selection, detailing the development of remedial alternatives, their
evaluation and selection of the remedy.
Chapter 6 provides the description of the required site management and periodic review process, and
includes guidance on site and project close out considerations.
‚ 6 NYCRR Part 611, Environmental Priorities and Procedures in Petroleum Cleanup and
Removal. November 5, 1984 (amended).
‚ Analytical Services Protocol (ASP). (FTP Zip file folder with documents) NYS DEC.
‚ Guidance for Evaluating Soil Vapor Intrusion in the State of New York . NYS
Department of Health. October 2006.
‚ Preparation Aids for the Development of Category I Quality Assurance Project Plans.
USEPA. EPA/600/8-91/003. February 1991.
‚ USEPA Contract Laboratory Program; Statement of Work for Organic Analysis; Multi-
Media, Multi-Concentration. EPA/540/R/94/097. December 1994.
‚ Standards, Criteria and Guidance (SCGs) for Investigation and Remediation of Sites
under Remedial Programs
DER-10
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
FOR
May 2010
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................203
DEC Website
Chapter 1
Section 1.1
Subsection 1.1.1
Subdivision (a)
Paragraph 1.
subparagraph i.
clause (1)
subclause (A)
1.1 Scope
(a) This program policy provides guidance for the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) Division of Environmental Remediation (DER) and regulated entities on how to
conduct acceptable investigation and remediation. No provision of this guidance document should be
construed to limit DER's authority to require additional investigation and/or remediation based upon
site-specific conditions.
(b) This document presents guidance relative to activities considered necessary to investigate and
remediate contamination at any applicable site, as identified in section 1.2.
1. Adherence to this guidance does not relieve any remedial party from:
ii. obtaining any and all permits required by federal, state or local statute or regulation,
except for those described in section 1.10; and
2. This guidance document does not apply to emergency interim remedial measures, which
are described in subdivision 1.11(b).
(c) No provisions of this guidance should be construed to alter the requirements of Navigation
Law or the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) or any regulation promulgated pursuant thereto.
(d) Pursuant to 6 NYCRR 375-1.11(b)(2), it is a violation to engage in any activity that will, or
that is reasonably anticipated to prevent or interfere significantly with any proposed, ongoing or
completed remedial program at any site or foreseeable to expose the public health and the environment
to a significantly increased threat of harm or damage at any site.
1.2 Applicability
(a) Applicable programs. Sites and activities subject to this guidance are those being conducted
pursuant to the DER oversight document identified by paragraphs (d)1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 below or a
federal oversight document as set forth in paragraph (d)5 below.
1. The New York State Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site Remedial Program (State
Superfund Program or SSF), as defined by ECL, Article 27, Title 13, except for emergency IRMs.
2. The New York State Environmental Restoration Program (ERP), as defined by ECL,
Article 56, Title 5.
3. The New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP), as defined by ECL, Article 27,
Title 14.
(b) Other programs. Sites and activities in the programs identified in this subdivision may be
subject to this guidance on a site-specific basis when the nature and extent of contamination and/or
complexity of the issues warrant the use of this guidance. The determination of applicability may be
made by DER, and where such determination is made, it will be incorporated in an oversight document,
in accordance with subdivision 1.2(d).
2. The Petroleum Bulk Storage Program, as defined by ECL, Article 17, Title 10.
3. The Chemical Bulk Storage Program, as defined by ECL, Article 40, Title 1.
(c) Applicable projects. DER-10 is applicable to projects as set forth in this subdivision.
1. Except as provided in paragraph 2 below, this guidance is applicable to work plans and
reports for all projects in the programs set forth in subdivision (a) above, and as applicable to (b) above.
2. For any approved work plan which is being implemented, as well as any report submitted
relative to that work, as of the effective date of this guidance, DER may evaluate the work completed to
determine whether the work performed was completed in substantial compliance with this guidance. For
example if a remedial investigation (RI) did not evaluate soil vapor intrusion, as set forth in section 3.6,
additional work may be necessary in order for the RI to be approved. Subsequent work plans would be
subject to this guidance.
3. To the extent that additional work may be necessary to address conditions at a site, or
where re-openers pursuant to any certificate of completion or closure letter issued by DEC are triggered,
this guidance will be considered at a site where the remedial program has been previously completed,
for such required work.
(d) Oversight documents. DER will only review and approve remedial program activities subject
to this guidance which are conducted pursuant to an oversight document as set forth in this subdivision.
1. For the SSF, an oversight document may include: an Administrative Consent Order or an
order issued by the Commissioner pursuant to ECL 27-1313.3.a.
2. For the ERP, after approval of an application by DEC, a State Assistance Contract is
3. For the BCP, after approval of an application by DEC a brownfield site cleanup
agreement executed between the applicant and DEC, pursuant to ECL 27-1409.
4. For the VCP, after approval of an application, an oversight document may include: a
voluntary cleanup agreement executed by the volunteer and DEC.
5. For Federal Superfund sites, federal consent decrees, administrative orders on consent are
entered into or unilateral orders are issued pursuant to CERCLA.
6. For the programs identified in subdivision (b) above, an order on consent or stipulation
pursuant to Article 12 of the Navigation Law would be executed, except for underground storage tank
closures performed pursuant to section 5.5, which are exempt from this requirement.
1.3 Definitions
(a) Many of the definitions set forth in this section are derived from either the ECL or 6 NYCRR
375 and these are identified with a reference following the definition. Should changes to the definition in
either source be made, the applicable new definition is to be used.
1. In addition to the definitions of words and terms used in this guidance in this section, a
glossary of terms specific to quality assurance and analytical methods is included in section 2.4
2. Acronyms for the various rules and regulations cited are provided on the DEC website.
(b) The following words and terms, when used in this guidance, will have the meanings set forth
below, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
1. "Area of concern" or “AOC” means any existing or former location at a site where
contaminants are known or suspected to have been discharged which is considered a source area. These
include locations where contaminants were generated, manufactured, refined, transported, stored,
handled, treated, disposed or where they have or may have migrated.
3. AConfirmation sample@ means a sample taken during the course of a remedial action to
determine whether cleanup requirements have been achieved or whether further remediation is required.
For a final delineation sample, the analysis must be by an ELAP-accredited laboratory.
4. "Contaminant" means hazardous waste and/or petroleum as such terms are defined in
paragraphs 25 and 43 below. [see 6 NYCRR 375-1.2(g)]
9. “Deed restriction” means an encumbrance on the property that controls the use of the
property. The restriction runs with the land in favor of the State and contains the use restriction(s) and/or
any prohibition(s) on the use of land in a manner inconsistent with engineering controls.
11. ADisposal@ means the abandonment, discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling,
leaking or placing of any contaminant so that such contaminant or any related constituent thereof may
enter the environment. Disposal also means the thermal destruction of a contaminant and the burning of
a contaminant as fuel for the purpose of recovering usable energy. [see 6 NYCRR 375-1.2(k)]
12. ADocumentation sample@ means a sample taken after remedial action is complete to
document the level of contamination remaining. For example, if the remedial objective specifies the
treatment or removal of a specific volume of soil instead of a cleanup level, documentation samples are
taken so that the level of any remaining contaminants is known. For a final delineation sample, the
analysis must be by an ELAP-accredited laboratory.
13. AEcological resources@ means all flora and fauna and the habitats (natural or human-
made) that support them, excluding such biota as pets, livestock, agricultural and horticultural crops.
Ecological resource may include:
16. "Engineering control" or “EC” means any physical barrier or method employed to
actively or passively contain, stabilize, or monitor contamination, restrict the movement of
contamination to ensure the long-term effectiveness of a remedial program, or eliminate potential
exposure pathways to contamination. Engineering controls include, but are not limited to, pavement,
caps, covers, subsurface barriers, vapor barriers, slurry walls, building ventilation systems, fences,
access controls, provision of alternative water supplies via connection to an existing public water supply,
adding treatment technologies to such water supplies, and installing filtration devices on private water
supplies. [see 6 NYCRR 375-1.2(o)]
17. AEnvironment@ means any water including surface or groundwater, sediment, water
vapor, any land including land surface or subsurface, air including soil vapor, fish, wildlife, other biota,
all other natural resources and humans. [see 6 NYCRR 375-1.2(p)]
18. "Environmental easement" means an interest in real property, created under and
subject to the provisions of ECL Article 71, Title 36 which contains a use restriction and/or a prohibition
on the use of land in a manner inconsistent with engineering controls, provided that no such easement
shall be acquired or held by the state which is subject to the provisions of article 14 of the constitution of
the State of New York. [see 6 NYCRR 375-1.2(q)]
19. AExposure pathway@ means the route through which a human or biota may come into
contact with a contaminant. The five elements of an exposure pathway are 1) the source of
contamination; 2) the environmental media and transport mechanisms; 3) the point of exposure; 4) the
route of exposure, and 5) the receptor population. These elements of an exposure pathway may be based
on past, present, or future events.
20. "Feasible" means suitable to site conditions, capable of being successfully carried out
with available technology, implementable and cost effective. [see 6 NYCRR 375-1.2(s)]
22. "Free product" means an immiscible non-aqueous phase liquid, other than a DNAPL,
present as a liquid, in surface or sub-surface soil, surface water or groundwater in a potentially mobile
state.
23. AGrossly contaminated media@ means soil, sediment, surface water or groundwater
which contains sources or substantial quantities of mobile contamination in the form of NAPL that is
identifiable either visually, through strong odor, by elevated contaminant vapor levels or is otherwise
24. "Groundwater" means water below the land surface in a saturated zone of soil or rock.
This includes perched water separated from the main body of groundwater by an unsaturated zone. [see
6 NYCRR 375-1.2(v)]
25. "Hazardous waste" means a waste which appears on the list or satisfies the
characteristics promulgated by the Commissioner pursuant to ECL 27-0903 and any substance which
appears on the list promulgated pursuant to ECL 37-0103; provided, however, that the term "hazardous
waste" does not include:
i. natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, synthetic gas usable for fuel,
or mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas; nor
ii. the residue of emissions from the engine exhaust of a motor vehicle, rolling stock,
aircraft, vessel, or pipeline pumping station engine; nor
iii. source, byproduct, or special nuclear material from a nuclear incident, as those
terms are defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, if such release is subject to requirements with
respect to financial protection established under section 170 of such act (42 USC 2210) or, for the
purpose of section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act ( CERCLA), or any other response action, any source, byproduct, or special nuclear material from
any processing site designated under section 102(a)(1) or 302(a) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act of 1978 (42 USC 7912(a)(1) or 7942(a); nor
iv. petroleum as defined in paragraph 44 below, even if appearing on the list
promulgated pursuant to ECL 37-0103. [see 6 NYCRR 375-1.2(w)]
31. "Monitored natural attenuation@ or AMNA@ is the process by which a natural systems
ability to attenuate contaminant(s) at a specific site is confirmed, monitored and quantified. Contaminant
concentrations may attenuate in natural systems through biodegradation; sorption; volatilization;
radioactive decay; chemical or biological stabilization; transformation; dispersion; dilution and/or the
destruction of contaminants.
32. ANatural resource@ means all land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, groundwater, drinking
water supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, appertaining to, or
otherwise controlled by the State.
33. ANatural resource damages@ or ANRD@ means the amount of money necessary to
restore, rehabilitate, replace or otherwise compensate for the injury to, destruction of, loss of or loss of
use of natural resources, including the reasonable costs of assessing or determining the damage, which
shall be recoverable by the designated trustees for natural resources pursuant to the CERCLA.
34. ANatural resource injury@ means an observable (i.e. qualitative) or measurable (i.e.
quantitative) adverse change in a natural resource or any impairment of a human or ecological service
provided by that resource relative to baseline, reference, or control conditions.
37. AOff-site contamination@ means any contamination which has emanated from a remedial
site beyond the real property boundaries of such site, via movement through air, indoor air, soil, surface
water or groundwater. [see 6 NYCRR 375-1.2(ad)]
38. AOn-site contamination@ means any contamination located within the real property
boundaries of a remedial site. [see 6 NYCRR 375-1.2(ae)]
39. AOperable unit@ means a portion of the remedial program for a site that for technical or
administrative reasons can be addressed separately to investigate, eliminate or mitigate a release, threat
40. "Oversight document" means any order, agreement, stipulation or state assistance
contract entered into by DEC as set forth in subdivision 1.2(d) of this guidance to define the role of a
person implementing in the investigation and/or remediation of a site or area(s) of concern.
41. APeriodic review report@ or “PRR” means a report which evaluates the institutional and
engineering controls, summarizes any monitoring results and/or evaluates any operation and
maintenance activities.
42. APerson@ means an individual, trust, firm, joint stock company, limited liability company,
corporation, joint venture, partnership, association, state, municipality, commission, political subdivision
of a state, public benefit corporation or any interstate body. Provided however, a person shall not include
a person as defined in ECL 27-1323. [see 6 NYCRR 375-1.2(ag)]
43. APetroleum@ or AOil@ means petroleum as defined by Article 12 Section 172 of the NYS
Navigation Law or Article 17, Title 10 of the ECL, specifically oil or petroleum of any kind and in any
form including but not limited to, oil, petroleum, fuel oil, oil sludge, oil refuse, oil mixed with other
wastes and crude oils, gasoline, kerosene and dielectric fluids. For purposes of this guidance, oil
includes mineral oils or any other oil for which an investigation and/or remediation is determined
necessary by DER to address a spill discharge or any disposal impacting public health and the
environment.
44. APetroleum remediation project@ means those petroleum related sites which are
determined to be subject to this guidance in accordance with paragraphs 1.2(b)1 and 2.
48. AProject manager@ means the DER staff member with primary responsibility for
ensuring that an investigation or remediation was completed in accordance with the applicable sections
of this guidance, using appropriate professional judgment and experience to ensure the goals and
objectives of a given remedial program are achieved.
51. "Quality assurance" means the total integrated program for assuring the reliability of
monitoring and measurement data which includes a system for integrating the planning, assessment and
improvement efforts to meet data end use data quality requirements.
52. "Quality assurance project plan" or AQAPP@ means a document which presents in
specific terms the policies, organization, objectives, functional activities and specific quality
assurance/quality control activities designed to achieve the data quality goals or objectives of a specific
project or operation.
53. "Quality control" means the routine application of procedures for attaining prescribed
standards of performance in the monitoring and measurement process.
54. AReceptor" means any humans or biota which are, or may be expected to be, or have
been, exposed to or affected by a contaminant from a site.
55. ARegulated wetland@ means any tidal or freshwater wetland regulated by New York
State under ECL Articles 15, 24 and 25 and as defined in 6 NYCRR 608.5, 661.4(hh) and 663.2(p)
56. ARelease@ means any pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or leaching, directly or
indirectly, of a contaminant so that the contaminant or any related constituent thereof, or any
degradation product of such a contaminant or of a related constituent thereof, may enter the
environment, or the disposal of any contaminant. [see 6 NYCRR 375-1.2(am)]. This includes discharges
from a pipe, except discharges pursuant to and in compliance with the conditions of a valid state or
58. "Remedial action" means those actions taken at or near a site as may be required by
DER, including, without limitation, sampling, removal, treatment, containment, transportation, securing,
or other engineering or institutional controls, whether of a permanent nature or otherwise, designed to
ensure that any discharged contaminant is remediated in compliance with the applicable decision
document, pursuant to Chapter 5 of this document.
59. "Remedial investigation" or ARI@ means a process undertaken to determine the nature
and extent of contamination at a site or operable unit of a site. The RI emphasizes data collection and
site characterization (SC), and generally is performed in support of the selection of a remedy. The scope
of a RI is more fully described at 6 NYCRR 375-1.8(e) and in Chapter 3.
60. "Remedial party@ means a person implementing a remedial program at a remedial site
pursuant to an oversight document as set forth in 1.2(d). [Note: Actions required of the remedial party
may also be undertaken by the person(s) (for example, a contractor or consultant) actually undertaking
the investigation and/or remediation for a site owner, responsible party, volunteer, by the USEPA for
federally funded sites or by DER for state funded sites.]
61. ARemedial program@ means all activities undertaken to investigate, design, eliminate,
remove, abate, control, or monitor existing health hazards, existing environmental hazards, potential
health hazards, potential environmental hazards in connection with a site, and all activities including, but
not limited to, the following undertaken to manage waste and contamination from a site:
62. ARemedial site@ or ASite@ means any real property consisting of a parcel, adjacent
properties or parcels, or portions of properties or parcels, identified as:
i. a property being addressed under the inactive hazardous waste disposal site
program (SSF);
ii. a brownfield site;
63. ARestricted use@ means a use of a site with imposed restrictions (e.g., environmental
easements, deed restrictions) which as part of the remedy selected for the site require a SMP which
relies on institutional or engineering controls to manage exposure to contamination remaining at a site.
Restricted use can include residential, restricted residential, commercial or industrial uses.
64. "Sediment" means unconsolidated particulate material found at the bottom of lakes,
rivers, streams and other water bodies at bed elevations equal to or lower than the mean high water level
as defined in 6 NYCRR 608.1(r). [Note: Materials present in enclosed sumps, sewers or piping systems
not accessible to fish and wildlife and not forming any benthic or aquatic habitat are not considered
sediments for the purpose of comparison to DEC’s Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated
Sediment.]
66. "Site characterization" or ASC@ means the first phase in the process of identifying areas
of concern at a site, which is conducted pursuant to Chapter 3 of this guidance.
67. ASite management@ means the activities undertaken as the last phase of the remedial
program at a site which continue after a certificate of completion (closure letter) is issued. Site
management is conducted in accordance with a site management plan, which identifies and implements
the institutional and engineering controls required for a site, as well as any necessary monitoring and/or
operation and maintenance of the remedy. [see 6 NYCRR 375-1.2(at)]
68. ASite management plan@ or “SMP” means a document which details the institutional
and engineering controls required for a site and any physical components of the remedy required to be
operated, maintained and monitored to assure continued effectiveness, developed pursuant to Chapter 6.
70. ASource area@ or Asource@ means a portion of a site or area of concern at a site where the
investigation has identified a discrete area of soil, sediment, surface water or groundwater containing
contaminants in sufficient concentrations to migrate in that medium, or to release significant levels of
contaminants to another environmental medium, which could result in a threat to public health and the
environment. A source area typically includes, but is not limited to, a portion of a site where a
substantial quantity of any of the following is present:
71. AStandards, Criteria and Guidance@ or A SCGs@ mean standards and criteria that are
generally applicable, consistently applied, and officially promulgated, that are either directly applicable,
or that are not directly applicable but are relevant and appropriate, unless good cause exists why
conformity should be dispensed with, and with consideration being given to guidance determined, after
the exercise of scientific and engineering judgment, to be applicable. This term incorporates both the
CERCLA concept of Aapplicable or relevant and appropriate requirements@ (ARARs) and the EPA=s Ato
be considered@ (TBCs) category of non-enforceable criteria or guidance. The most common applicable
SCGs are identified on the DEC website identified in the table of contents. For purposes of this
Guidance, “soil SCGs” means the soil cleanup objectives and supplemental soil cleanup objectives
identified in 6 NYCRR 375-6.8 and the Commissioner Policy on Soil Cleanup Guidance (CP-Soil).
72. ASubstantive technical permit requirements@ means those requirements that have a
direct bearing on the action to be taken and relate to the technical (scientific) aspects of the action rather
than the administrative procedures of obtaining a permit. Also see section 1.10.
73. AToxicity assessment@ means a field study, laboratory study and/or literature review
conducted to determine the concentration at which a contaminant becomes toxic to an individual or an
organism. A contaminant is considered toxic if it causes death, morbidity or sub-lethal effects on
growth, reproduction, behavior or physiology of an organism, whether through direct or indirect toxicity
or through bioaccumulation.
74. "Underground storage tank" means any tank or other vessel that has at least 10 percent
of its volume underground. Tanks in subterranean vaults accessible for inspections are not considered
underground storage tanks.
75. AUnrestricted use@ means use without imposed restrictions such as environmental
easements, deed restrictions or other land use controls.
77. "Waste" means any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste water treatment plant, water
supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility, and other discarded material, whether or not such
material may eventually be used for some other purpose, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained
gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations or from
community activities, and source, special nuclear or by-product material as defined in the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, except as may be provided by existing agreements between the State
of New York and the government of the United States, but does not include solid or dissolved material
in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges
which are point sources subject to permits under ECL Article 17. [see 6 NYCRR 375-1.2(aw)]
78. AWaste oil@ means used engine lubricating oil or any other oil, including but not limited
79. "Waters" means all lakes, bays, sounds, ponds, impounding reservoirs, groundwater,
springs, wells, rivers, streams, creeks, estuaries, marshes, inlets, canals, the Atlantic Ocean within the
territorial limits of the State of New York and all other bodies of water, natural or artificial, inland or
coastal, fresh or salt, public or private, which are wholly or partially within or bordering the state or
within its jurisdiction.
80. AWetland@ means any freshwater or tidal wetland including federal jurisdictional
wetlands, NYS regulated wetlands and unregulated wetlands.
1.4 Notification
(a) Notification process. The remedial party, unless otherwise specified, should notify DER in the
manner set forth by this subdivision.
1. These notifications should be in writing and provided in the time frames identified for the
notice in subdivisions (b) to (d) below. The notification must include the following information:
i. name and address of the person responsible for implementing the remedial program;
v. nature of the:
(1) change of use being reported, in accordance with subdivision (b) below;
(2) element of the field activities associated with a remedial program or other
planned activities subject to a SMP to be performed, in accordance with subdivision (c) below; or
(3) emergency action undertaken at the site, in accordance with subdivision (d)
below; and
2. The information required to be sent to DER should be submitted to the assigned project
manager or, if no project manager is assigned, to the following address:
3. These notifications are not intended to satisfy the citizen participation requirements
applicable to sites being investigated or remediated pursuant to any of the programs to which this
guidance is applicable, which are provided in DER-23 Citizen Participation Handbook for Remedial
Programs.
i. any statute or any regulation, including but not limited to Navigation Law 175; ECL
Title 14, 17-1007, 17-1743 or 40-011; and/or
ii. an order, agreement or permit that requires notifications or any additional notices
required by the applicable programs identified in subdivisions 1.2(a) or (b).
(b) Change of use notification. Notice is to be made at least 60 days before a change of use for all
programs.
ii. requires that the notice be made at least 60 days before the change of use, pursuant
to the provisions of 6 NYCRR 375-1.11(d).
2. For the programs set forth in paragraphs 1.2(a)4-6 and 1.2(b)1-4 a notice consistent with
the notice requirements pursuant to 6 NYCRR 375-1.11(d) is required for a change of use as defined at 6
NYCRR 375-3.2(d) at least 60 days before the change of use.
(c) Notification regarding the start of any field activities associated with a remedial program,
including those planned activities conducted during site management. Notice is to be made seven (7)
calendar days prior to the actual start of any such field activities. The notice is to be made in accordance
with subdivision (a) above and include a schedule of the work. Subsequent 7-day notices and work
schedules will be required where the work is to proceed in phases not subject to the initial schedule
provided.
1. Field activities associated with an ongoing remedial program for which a schedule has
been approved as part of a work plan prepared pursuant to this guidance, where the schedule is current,
are exempted from this additional reporting.
2. The remedial party must also notify DEC’s Division of Fish Wildlife and Marine
Resources at least 7 calendar days prior to the initiation of any field work or biota sampling related to
the Fish and Wildlife Resources Impact Analysis (FWRIA). The notification should contain the
3. Any action undertaken as part of the ongoing site management (e.g., an excavation plan)
not considered an emergency action in accordance with subdivision (d) below, requires notification to
the parties set forth in subdivision (a) above, and must include:
(1) plans for any intrusive elements or utilities to be installed in the subsurface
prior to the implementation of the remedy at a site; and/or
(2) impact any engineering control or other component of the site remedy;
ii. a summary of environmental conditions anticipated in the work areas, including but
not limited to the nature and concentrations of contaminants of concern, and potential presence of
contaminated soil or groundwater; and
iii. a schedule for the work detailing the start and completion of intrusive elements of
the proposed work.
ii. those actions undertaken in response to the need for emergency repairs to utilities or
other site infrastructure.
2. The initial verbal report is to be made by noon of the next business day, upon knowledge
of any condition posing an emergency, to the regional remediation engineer for the region in which the
site is located and to the identified site project manager.
3. In addition, a written notice, as set forth in subdivision (a) above, is to be provided within
seven (7) business days.
(e) The remedial party must notify DER if it is determined during the investigation or
remediation of the site that contamination has migrated onto such site from another property or when a
spill, release or underground storage tank is identified. No provisions of this guidance should be
construed to alter the notification requirements of Navigation Law 175.
1.5 Certifications
(a) All documents, which are prepared in final form in accordance with this guidance for
submission to DER for approval, are to be prepared and certified in accordance with the applicable
statute and/or regulations identified in section 1.2.
iv. site owners, which are the owners of the property comprising the site at the time of
the certification.
2. A person who does not meet the definition of a professional engineer or a qualified
environmental professional may assist in the conduct of all appropriate investigation or remediation
activities in accordance with this document, if such person is under the supervision or responsible charge
of a person meeting the definition provided above.
3. Other plans or reports which may be prepared for submission to DER as part of a
remedial program, to which these certification requirements do not apply, include:
i. Health and safety plans. All health and safety plans submitted in response to
section 1.9 are to be prepared, signed and implemented by a certified industrial hygienist by the
American Board of Industrial Hygiene, a certified safety professional by the Board of Certified Safety
Professionals or other qualified person pursuant to 29CFR1910.120. This requires the decision-making
skills of a qualified health and safety professional with practical hazardous waste site experience. The
person developing your plan should have the knowledge and skills necessary to identify and evaluate the
range of hazards associated with hazardous waste site operations. In addition, this individual must be
qualified to identify the appropriate monitoring and exposure controls necessary for employee protection
based on the contaminants and other hazards anticipated onsite.;
ii. Fish and Wildlife Resources Impact Analysis. A FWRIA submitted pursuant to
section 3.10 is to be conducted by a qualified biologist, ecologist or other qualified professional
experienced in habitat assessment and assessment of contaminant impacts. The FWRIA should
document the education and experience of the professional conducting the FWRIA; and
(b) All reports and work plans identified in Table 1.5, prepared in accordance with this guidance,
will use one of the certifications provided by this subdivision. The appropriate certification must be
included on the title page of all submissions of the document (so it can be reviewed along with the rest
of the document) and must be fully executed when a submission of the document is made by the
remedial party to DER for approval.
i. does not have to have been personally in charge of all others engaged by the firm in
the implementation of the project, rather was the person in the firm with direct responsibility for the
personnel engaged in the inspection and engineering provided by the firm to assure the implementation
of the project by the construction contractor was in accordance with the approved remedial design or
remedial action work plan, including the engineering review of all contractor submittals and field
changes approved for the project;
ii. to the implementation of the work under the firms oversight is attesting to work
having been performed by the construction contractor in accordance with the approved remedial design
or remedial action work plan, including the engineering review of all contractor submittals and field
changes approved for the project; and
If the Remedial Action Work Plan (or Remedial Design or Plans and Specifications)
identifies time frames to be achieved by the remedial program, the certification
must include: The data submitted to DER demonstrates that the remediation
requirements set forth in the Remedial Work Plan (or Remedial Design or Plans
and Specifications) and all applicable statutes and regulations have been or will be
achieved in accordance with the time frames, if any, are established in the work
plan(or Remedial Design or Plans and Specifications).@
4. For the final engineering report. The NYS registered professional engineer certifying:
i. does not have to have been personally in charge of all others engaged by the firm in
the implementation of the project, rather was the person in the firm with direct responsibility for the
personnel engaged in the inspection and engineering provided by the firm to assure the implementation
of the project by the construction contractor was in accordance with the approved remedial design or
remedial action work plan, including the engineering review of all contractor submittals and field
changes approved for the project;
ii. to the implementation of the work under the firms oversight is attesting to work
having been performed by the construction contractor in accordance with the approved remedial design
or remedial action work plan, including the engineering review of all contractor submittals and field
changes approved for the project; and
If the Remedial Action Work Plan (or Remedial Design or Plans and Specifications)
identifies time frames to be achieved by the remedial program, the certification
must include: The data submitted to DER demonstrates that the remediation
requirements set forth in the Remedial Work Plan (or Remedial Design or Plans
and Specifications) and all applicable statutes and regulations have been or will be
achieved in accordance with the time frames, if any, established in the work plan
(or Remedial Design or Plans and Specifications).@
If the remedial program requires ICs or ECs, the certification must include: AAll use
restrictions, institutional controls, engineering controls and/or any operation and
maintenance requirements applicable to the site are contained in an environmental
easement created and recorded pursuant to ECL 71-3605 and that any affected
local governments, as defined in ECL 71-3603, have been notified that such
easement has been recorded.@
If the remedial program requires applicable SMP, the certification must include: AA
Site Management Plan has been submitted for the continual and proper operation,
maintenance, and monitoring of any engineering controls employed at the site
including the proper maintenance of any remaining monitoring wells, and that such
plan has been approved by DER.@
If the remedial program requires financial assurance, the certification must include:
AAny financial assurance mechanisms required by DEC pursuant to Environmental
Conservation Law have been executed.@
5. For the periodic review report for those site remedial programs undertaken pursuant to
subdivision 1.2(a), where an institutional control/engineering control (IC/EC) certification is to be
provided:
AFor each institutional or engineering control identified for the site, I certify that all
of the following statements are true:
(a) the institutional control and/or engineering control employed at this site is
unchanged from the date the control was put in place, or last approved by DER;
(b) nothing has occurred that would impair the ability of such control to
protect public health and the environment;
(c) nothing has occurred that would constitute a violation or failure to comply
with any Site Management Plan for this control;
(d) access to the site will continue to be provided to DER to evaluate the
remedy, including access to evaluate the continued maintenance of this control; and
(e) if a financial assurance mechanism is required under the oversight
6. For a site in the BCP program, which DER has been determined does not represent a
significant threat to public health and the environment and where contaminants in groundwater at the
site boundary contravene drinking water standards:
ii. in addition every five years the following statement (g) will be added to the
certification:
(c) Exemption for the design of soil vapor mitigation systems. As noted in Table 1.5 line 6, an
exemption is available whereby a contractor who has met the certification requirements of this
subdivision and is trained to identify and mitigate radon intrusion into buildings, with the approval of
DER, may install such systems without a design prepared and certified by a NYS professional engineer.
2. This exemption applies solely to the installation of a mitigation system without a design,
if any structural modifications are necessary to the building requiring mitigation, a NYS PE prepared
and certified design will be required.
(a) All remedial program activities conducted are to be documented and included in reports which
follow the format and contain the information described in the reporting sections of Chapters 2 through
6 and be certified as set forth in section 1.5.
1. If a report has previously been submitted to DEC pursuant to another DEC regulatory
program, the previously submitted report may be submitted to DER to satisfy the applicable
(b) The remedial party is to submit work plans and reports pursuant to the schedule contained in
the oversight document and they should comply with the format and contain the information described
in Chapters 2 through 6 of this document.
(c) To provide flexibility for the investigation and remediation, DER has identified certain limited
situations where alternate sampling, analytical or investigatory methods may be used with DER
pre-approval.
1. The alternate methods are to be documented in the appropriate work plan. The decision
whether to grant the request rests solely with DER.
2. DER will evaluate an alternate method in terms of its site-specific application, based
upon the documentation provided and other appropriate information available to DER. DER will
consider the extent to which the alternate method:
i. has previously been used successfully by DER or USEPA Region 2 in New York
State in similar situations;
iv. can be expected to achieve the same results or objectives as the method which it
proposes to replace;
v. furthers the attainment of the goals of the specific remedial phase for which it is
used; and
3. A request to use alternate methods should be initiated by the remedial party and should
include:
i. the name and address, unless all are the same, of the person:
(d) Verbal approvals of alternative methods (e.g., field decisions) may also be granted and these
field decisions should be documented as detailed in paragraph 3.2.1(c)4.
(a) DER may request additional work beyond the technical guidance set forth in this document to
ensure an appropriate investigation and/or remediation of the site.
ii. the number or magnitude of the disposal site or areas of concern being investigated;
vi. the identification of receptors not otherwise fully investigated pursuant to these
requirements;
viii. when DER determines that additional data or information is needed to fully
evaluate or remediate the nature and extent of contamination at the site;
ix. when additional work is required pursuant to any applicable statute or regulation,
including 6 NYCRR 375; and
x. any other conditions DER identifies which necessitate the need for additional
activities.
2. DER may also request the use of alternative methods where the alternative method
satisfies the conditions set forth in paragraph 1.6(c)2.
(b) Natural resource damages (NRD). The remedial party may elect to examine the issue of
potential NRD liability early on in the remedial process. If the remedial party wishes to address their
potential NRD liability at any time prior to the submission of a fish and wildlife resources impact
analysis (FWRIA) Part 1, they should contact DEC’s Office of General Counsel.
(a) A site should be organized into Areas of Concern or AAOCs@ as defined in paragraph 1.3(b)1
for purposes of the investigation of the site.
(b) AOCs identified at a site may be further organized into operable units, as defined by
paragraph 1.3(b)39 at the request of the remedial party, with DER approval, or by DER.
(c) AOCs may include all current, former and suspected areas of the site associated with the
possible contaminant sources identified by this subdivision.
iii. piping, above and below-ground pumping stations, sumps and pits; and
i. building floor drains and piping, sumps and pits, including trenches and piping from
sinks that potentially received process waste;
ii. roof leaders (when process or storage operations vent to the roof or they are
adjacent to air emission points);
i. areas of discharges;
ii. wastewater treatment, collection and disposal systems including without limitation
septic systems, seepage pits and dry wells;
iii. landfills;
iv. landfarms;
v. sprayfields;
vi. incinerators;
vii. fill areas, not defined as historic fill in accordance with paragraph 1.3(b)26; and
5. Other areas of concern, including, without limitation, areas where the following are or
were suspected to have been present:
v. open areas uncharacteristic of the general site cover type away from production
operations;
x. areas that may have received flood water or storm water runoff from potentially
contaminated areas;
(d) Areas of concern may also be associated with other media or resources impacted by
contamination resulting from activities at the site or AOCs identified in subdivision (c) above.
1. Groundwater areas of concern may include, without limitation, present or past regulated
activities under the New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) regulations for
discharges to groundwater, including; seepage pits, dry wells, lagoons, and septic systems which may
have received unauthorized discharges of waste or other contaminants in contravention of their
permitted use.
2. Surface water areas of concern may include, without limitation, any area(s) of a surface
water body and associated bottom and floodplain sediment on or proximate to a site, which received or
may have received any point or non-point source discharge from the site.
3. Ecological resource AOCS may include, without limitation, areas where ecological
resources which have been determined by DEC to constitute an important component of the
environment at or in the vicinity of the site may be present. Such AOCs may include, without limitation,
all biota and areas of terrestrial, aquatic and marine habitat where contaminants are, have been or are
suspected to have been discharged or have migrated.
4. Soil areas of concern may include, without limitation, areas of surface or subsurface soil
at a site where:
iii. previous sampling has indicated contamination at levels or frequencies that exceed
applicable SCGs which indicate a need for further evaluation.
(a) Health and Safety Plan (HASP). Any person conducting investigation or remediation
activities is required to prepare and implement a site-specific health and safety plan which will be
adhered to by all personnel involved in the investigation and/or remediation at the site. The HASP is a
requirement of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and is not subject to
the approval of DER.
2. A copy of the health and safety plan (HASP) will be available at the site during the
conduct of all activities to which it is applicable.
(b) Community Health and Safety Plan (CAMP). In addition to the HASP for the protection of
site workers, all work plans for any intrusive activities must include a site-specific plan, the CAMP, to
address community health and safety which identifies measures and/or actions to ensure that the public
living and working near the site as well as employees or visitors to any facility located on the site are
protected from exposure to site contaminants during intrusive activities, remedial actions or on-site
treatment actions undertaken during the investigation and/or remediation of the site, including site
management as detailed in subdivision (b) below.
(c) A HASP, prepared in accordance with OSHA 1910.120, will be required by the site
management plan (SMP) prepared in accordance with Chapter 6 as detailed in this subdivision.
1. The SMP, as defined in paragraph 1.3(b)68, will include a HASP and CAMP and be
available at the site for use by employees of the remedial party/site owner for activities where the public
using the site, surrounding community or the site workers may be exposed to remaining contamination.
Such activities associated with the development, redevelopment or use of a site include those:
ii. related to the implementation of the monitoring plan included in the SMP (SMP);
and/or
i. the site cap or soil cover is breached, penetrated or has been temporarily removed
from areas of the site;
ii. any potential for exposure to the public or site workers from the remaining
contamination may result from activities subject to the SMP; and/or
4. A CAMP will not generally be required for the investigation or delineation of site
conditions which are not considered intrusive activities for purposes of section 1.9, these activities
include the sampling of:
i. surface soil;
ii. groundwater;
iv. sediment;
vi. soil gas and sub-slab soil vapor, after the sampling ports have been installed.
5. The HASP/CAMP in the SMP and the requirements imposed on contractors, will be
updated as necessary prior to any of the activities identified by this subdivision to reflect any changes to
the OSHA requirements or NYSDOH CAMP guidance. These changes will be identified in the periodic
review report (PRR) when made or in any notification provided to DER, in accordance with subdivision
1.4(b), which occurs prior to the PRR submission.
1.10 Exemptions from Obtaining NYS and Local Permits and Other Authorizations
(a) The remedial party may be exempted from a requirement to obtain certain permits and other
authorizations for site activities issued by the State of New York and local agencies pursuant to DEC
statutes, regulations, policies and procedures. An exemption of the obligation to obtain a permit and
other authorizations may be provided if all of the criteria below apply to the remedial program being
implemented.
1. The activity is on-site. For purposes of this guidance an activity is on-site if:
ii. it is conducted on different premises that are under common control or are
contiguous to or physically connected with the site and the activity manages exclusively contamination
for which the remedial party is responsible.
2. The activity satisfies all substantive technical requirements applicable to like activity
conducted pursuant to the State or local permit as determined by DEC; and
3. The activity is a component of the remedial program. For purposes of the permit
exemptions provided by this section, the construction of a building(s) or other applicable appurtenance
on the site is not considered a component of the remedial program.
1. DEC permits and other authorizations. An exemption from obtaining permits and other
authorizations issued by DEC which meet the criteria in subdivision (a) above will typically be granted.
2. Permits and other authorizations issued by other New York State agencies or authorities.
DER will require a remedial party obtain applicable State permits and other authorizations which are not
issued by DEC unless there is a demonstration that:
i. obtaining such State or local permit or other authorizations will substantially delay
the project or present a hardship, DER may exempt the party from the need to obtain such State or local
permits or other authorizations provided:
(1) the remedial program or activity is conducted on the site or on premises that
are under common control or are contiguous to or physically connected with the site and the activity
manages exclusively contamination which DEC or remedial party is handling as part of the site remedial
program;
(2) all substantive technical requirements applicable to like activity conducted
pursuant to a permit or other authorizations are complied with, as determined by DEC; and
(3) the activity is a component of a program selected by a process complying with
the citizen participation requirements of DER 23 - Citizen Participation Handbook, to the extent
applicable; or
ii. the substantive nature of the permit or other authorizations criteria are such that
4. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this section, DEC will not waive building or
other state or local permits or other authorizations which as a condition of issuance require inspections
by the permitting or authorizing agency to confirm compliance with building codes or local ordinances.
5. The remedial party will be responsible for obtaining all permits or other authorizations
required for actions associated with the development of the site.
(c) The remedial party must obtain Federal permits or other authorizations required to complete
the investigation and/or remediation.
(d) Waiver of registration fees for tanks. For a site that is being remediated under an order or
agreement in accordance with paragraphs 1.2(b)1 through 3, the remedial party must ascertain if tanks at
the site are regulated under the petroleum bulk storage (PBS) or chemical bulk storage (CBS)
regulations. Bulk storage staff in the DEC regional offices or Bulk Storage Section in DER can assist
with this determination.
1. If the remedial party determines that the site has tanks regulated under the bulk storage
regulations, then the remedial party must ensure the following:
iii. the applicant/owner must note on the CBS/PBS application that the fees are waived
in accordance with 6 NYCRR 375-1.12(e) by writing "Part 375 Fees exempt" in or near the amount
enclosed box on Section A in order for the application to be processed without any fees being required.
2. If the steps given in paragraph 1 above are not followed, the application will be processed
as normal. That is, the application will be processed if submitted with fees or rejected if submitted
without the fees. Please note that once an application is processed, refunds will not be made.
(a) A priority during investigation and/or remediation is to contain and/or stabilize, to the extent
possible, sources of contamination identified in any media to reduce/eliminate receptor exposure to
contaminants or to contain further movement of contaminants through any pathway.
1. Actions taken to mitigate environmental or human exposures before the completion of the
RI and appropriate remedial alternative selection, are considered interim remedial measures (IRMs).
3. When the need for an IRM is identified, the remedial party should:
i. immediately notify DER so that the IRM can be performed under DER oversight, as
appropriate;
iii. follow the guidance for the appropriate type of IRM provided in subdivisions (b) or
(c) below.
(c) A non-emergency or non-time critical IRM is an action which may be undertaken at any time
during the course of the remedial program, in response to actual or potential environmental or public
health exposures identified at the site.
2. Non-emergency IRMs:
i. for underground storage tank removals should be conducted in accordance with the
requirements of section 5.5 and are not required to comply with paragraph 3 below.
ii. all other non-emergency IRMs should be planned, as appropriate for the level of
complexity of the work proposed, in accordance with the guidance for either a remedial design, section
5.2 or remedial action work plan, section 5.3 and implemented in accordance with section 5.4.
(d) Accelerated remediation is encouraged as an IRM subject to DER approval. IRMs are
advanced pursuant to section 1.11 and may be conducted concurrently with sampling to delineate the
contamination and to confirm contaminant removal.
i. first define the nature and extent of contamination through the RI; and
ii. consider use scenarios set forth in this section in developing a remedy consistent
with the remedy selection provisions and limitations for the various remedial programs as set forth in
Chapter 4.
2. Unrestricted use. A site designated for unrestricted use is a site subject to no imposed
institutional or engineering controls, such as an environmental easement or deed restriction.
3. Restricted use. A site designated for restricted use is a site subject to imposed restrictions
on its use, in the form of institutional or engineering controls, to manage exposure to remaining
contamination at the site. DER recognizes four categories of restricted land use, from least restrictive to
most restrictive as shown below:
(b) Categories of restricted use. The four categories of restricted use detailed in this subdivision
require, at a minimum, institutional controls (e.g., environmental easement, deed restriction) in
accordance with section 5.6.
1. Residential. The residential use category allows a site to be used for any use(s) other than
producing animal products for human consumption. Residential use is the land use category intended for
single family housing and requires the fewest restrictions on the use of the site. The residential use
i. does not allow for the use of a SMP or other institutional or engineering controls to
manage any remaining soil contamination on the site, although engineering controls without an
institutional control, may be used to address:
iii. will require an environmental easement or deed restriction, except when the
remedial program achieves the residential use soil cleanup objectives (SCOs) set forth at 6 NYCRR 375-
6.8 to a depth of fifteen feet below the developed ground surface or to bedrock, if shallower. This will
only apply, where DER determines that the:
2. Restricted residential. The restricted residential use category allows a site to be used for
residential use but only when there is common ownership or control by a single owner/managing entity
of the site. Restricted residential use is the land use category intended for apartments, condominium, co-
operative or other multi-family/common property control residential development. The restricted
residential use category:
(1) a prohibition on vegetable gardens on the site, unless planted in gardens where
the soil achieves the residential use soil cleanup objectives; and
(2) a prohibition of single-family housing;
iii. is the appropriate use category for the following site uses:
iv. allows for active recreational uses, which includes recreational activities with a
reasonable potential for soil contact, such as:
3. Commercial. The commercial use category anticipates use by businesses with the primary
purpose of buying, selling or trading of merchandise or services. The commercial use category:
i. restricts the use to commercial activities including the buying and/or selling of
goods or services, or other uses identified in subparagraph iii below;
iii. is the appropriate use category for the following site uses:
iv. allows for passive recreational, which includes recreational uses with limited
potential for soil contact, such as:
4. Industrial. The industrial use category anticipates use for the primary purpose of manufacturing,
production, fabrication or assembly processes and ancillary services. The industrial use category:
i. allows the use of the site only for industrial purposes with access to the site limited
to workers or occasional visitors;
ii. includes all of the restrictions set forth in subparagraph 2.i, above; and
Exposed Person Adult & Child Adult & Child Adult & Child Adult & Child Adult &
Adolescent
Route of
Exposure
Incidental Soil U U U U U
Ingestion
Inhalation of U U U U U
Soil
Dermal Contact U U U U U
with Soil
Homegrown U U
Vegetable
Consumption
Producing U
animal products
for human
consumption
1. A check mark in the box indicates the person considered (e.g., child, adult) by category
and route of exposure were included in the evaluation to determine the SCO for each use category. For
example, the restricted residential exposure does not have the boxes for “Homegrown Vegetable
Consumption” or “Raising of Livestock” checked, accordingly these activities are not allowed in the
restricted categories.
(a) Applicability. The standards, criteria and guidance (SCGs) discussed in this section are
intended to apply to the remedial program, unless good cause exists why conformity with particular
SCGs should be dispensed with.
1. An index to potentially applicable New York State SCGs is provided on DEC’s website
identified in the table of contents, which lists some of the SCGs potentially applicable to site
investigation and remediation activities conducted in New York State. This list is neither meant to be
comprehensive nor to imply that all of the listed SCGs are appropriate for every investigation or
remediation conducted.
2. The remedial party must also comply with other federal and local SCGs, if applicable to
the site, which are also identified on the website SCG page.
(b) SCG description. SCGs as defined at paragraph 1.3(b) 71, are promulgated requirements and
non-promulgated guidance which guide site activities during investigation and remediation.
1. Standards and criteria are set forth in Federal or New York State law. They are cleanup
standards, standards of control, and other substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or
limitations which are generally applicable, consistently applied and officially promulgated under federal
or State law that are either directly applicable or relevant and appropriate to a contaminant, remedial
action, location, or other circumstance.
(a) Role of green remediation in remedial programs. Green remediation seeks to minimize
ancillary environmental impacts such as green house gas emissions (GHGs) from remedial programs.
Applying green remediation concepts, such as minimizing energy consumption, maximizing the reuse of
land and the recycling of materials, and conserving natural resources helps to achieve that objective.
i. reducing direct and indirect emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other
GHGs;
1. DER will emphasize and encourage the use of green strategies and approaches at every
stage of the remedial program by remedial parties and will also foster the use of green remediation best
management practices as they are identified by DEC.
2. While sustainability will be a consideration in remedy selection, it will not change any
existing statute, regulation or guidance.
(c) Additional guidance relative to green remediation and sustainability in DER remedial
programs is available on DEC’s website identified in the table of contents.
(a) DER supports and encourages the use of electronic submissions by the remedial party to the
greatest degree appropriate for the site-specific remedial program. The electronic submission approach
for a given activity may vary and should be defined in the appropriate work plan or by consultation with
the DER project manager.
1. The remedial party will deliver to the DER preliminary or final reports in an electronic
format that complies with DEC’s Electronic Document Standards (EDS) or as otherwise directed by
DER.
2. All data generated will be submitted in an electronic data deliverable (EDD) that
complies with the DEC's Electronic Data Warehouse Standards (EDWS) or as otherwise directed by
DER.
3. Additional information relative to the EDS, EDD and EDWS is available on the DEC
website identified in the table of contents.
(b) DER will also seek to maximize its use of electronic responses and document distributions in
all reviews, approvals or other DER initiated actions required in accordance with this guidance.
i. for organic contaminants the full target compound list plus the 30 (10 volatile
organic compounds and 20 semi-volatile organic compounds) highest concentration tentatively
identified compounds (TICs). The full target compound list plus the 30 (TCL+30), as defined in
paragraph 2.4(d)15; and
ii. for inorganic compounds, the full target analyte list (TAL), as defined in paragraph
2.4(d)13.
2. Samples from an area of concern or a site may be analyzed for a limited contaminant list
as approved by DER once the nature of the contamination is fully characterized.
3. For investigations of known petroleum releases, sample analysis must be for the suite of
contaminants shown in the fuel oil and gasoline tables (tables 2 and 3) contained in the Commissioner
Policy on Soil Cleanup Guidance (CP-Soil).
4. For investigation of non-petroleum storage and discharge areas, sample analysis must use
the methods appropriate for the stored or discharged material.
(b) Laboratory analytical methods. Except as provided in paragraph 1 below, samples collected
by the remedial party will be analyzed by an analytical method included in the most current DEC
Analytical Services Protocol (ASP), available on DEC’s website identified in the table of contents.
i. does not exist for a specific contaminant or parameter (e.g., pH, dissolved oxygen)
within a specific matrix;
2. Where one of the exceptions in paragraph 1 exists, the remedial party will:
iv. propose the method and standard operating procedure for such method to DEC for
its consideration and approval.
3. The method selected must achieve a detection limit or minimum reporting limit that is
below the applicable cleanup level for all contaminants that may be present in the medium being
sampled and analyzed.
4. Unless otherwise provided in a DER-approved work plan, the Lloyd Kahn method must
be used for the determination of total organic carbon in soil and sediment. This method is available on
DEC’s website identified in the table of contents.
5. Except for tissue samples (see subdivision 2.1 (d) below), gas chromatography methods
with a mass spectrometer detector system must be used for analysis of semi-volatile contaminants
(exclusive of herbicides, pesticides and PCBs). Other chromatography methods (e.g., high-performance
liquid chromatography) with appropriate detector systems must be used for the analysis of organic
analytes amenable only to non-gas chromatographic methods. A mass spectrometer detector system is
preferable but not required if the site has already been characterized to the extent that all contaminants
are known.
6. The procedures (including quality control and quality assurance) specified in the ASP
analytical method must be followed unless an alternate procedure is included in the approved work plan.
1. DER accepts the use of field-testing technologies (e.g., immunoassay test kits, x-ray
fluorescence devices, direct-sensing down-hole tools) when supported by ELAP approved analytical
methods, provided the data are not used to make final determinations relative to impacts of
contamination on public health. The role of field testing technologies for programs for which this
guidance applies is described in Appendix 2A.
ii. to bias sample location to the specific location of greatest suspected contamination;
i. a standard operating procedure must be provided for DER approval that includes:
ii. laboratory analysis of split samples must be performed to evaluate the correlation
between the field testing technology and the ELAP-certified laboratory results. A minimum of 10% of
the samples must be analyzed by the ELAP-certified laboratory using a standard ASP method. In
general, sufficient correlation occurs if the field testing and laboratory results are within 30 relative
percent difference;
iii. 10% of sample analyses using the field-testing technology must be performed in
duplicate;
iv. there should be no bias in the selection of duplicate or correlation samples, such as
selecting only positive detections for duplicate or correlation sampling. The duplicate or correlation
analysis should be done on every tenth sample, selected in the order they are collected and presented for
analysis; and
v. the field testing must be performed by a field technician with the following
minimum qualifications:
(d) Tissue analysis. Where the analysis of tissue samples is required, the sampling and analysis
included in any work plan must be in accordance with this subdivision.
1. For tissue analysis. Methods and sampling plans must be specified in the work plan and
approved prior to implementation. EPA SW-846 methods are not appropriate for biological tissue as
these methods, for example, often underestimate PCB/organochlorine concentrations.
2. Analysis of lipid content is required for all organochlorine compounds using EPA3540C
Soxhlet extraction with 1:1 hexane/acetone ratio or other approved method. The percent lipids should be
determined from the same aliquot as that used to determine the organochlorine concentration.
3. Tissue sampling should follow the current procedures set forth in the most current DEC
guidance documents for biota collection, preparation and analysis.
(e) Soil vapor intrusion sampling. When soil vapor, sub-slab vapor, crawl space air, indoor air or
outdoor air sampling is required the NYSDOH document, Guidance for Evaluating Soil Vapor Intrusion
in the State of New York (October 2006) or the most current version with appropriate updates, must be
Final DER-10 Page 45 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
used.
1. Methods acceptable to DER must be used to determine the presence of NAPL in soil or
water. Such methods include, without limitation, visual identification of sheens or other visible product,
measurable thickness of product on the water table, the use of field instruments, ultraviolet fluorescence,
soil-water agitation, centrifuging and hydrophobic dye testing.
ii. a mixture of such contaminants in (i) above is present, then the effective water
solubility of the contaminant should be estimated for this determination.
1. Provision for the alteration of groundwater samples (filtration as defined in section 2.4)
for metals analysis is only acceptable when the rationale for any proposed filtration is prepared in
accordance with this subdivision and, if a field decision, must be reviewed and approved in accordance
with subdivision 1.6(d) by the DER project manager prior to any filtration of samples.
2. Alteration of groundwater samples will not be approved unless the following conditions
can be documented:
i. the target turbidity level of 50 NTUs for development and sampling of groundwater
monitoring well is or will be exceeded;
ii. the well(s) being sampled was (were) properly designed, installed, constructed,
developed, maintained and sampled;
iii. attempts have been made to repurge and/or redevelop the well; and
iv. replacement of the well(s) with documentation of proper well construction and
installation where necessary, has been considered and is not justified.
3. Any request to filter groundwater samples must include a justification which addresses
the conditions listed in paragraph 2 above and include a filtering protocol which:
ii. is a filtration methodology which minimizes changes in the water chemistry of the
sample;
Final DER-10 Page 46 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
iii. provides that any precipitates which may form upon removal of the sample from the
well (e.g., iron floc) must not be filtered out but dissolved by acid/preservation; and
iv. provides that a filtered sample would not be collected without an accompanying
unfiltered sample.
i. the sample must be collected using a minimally disturbing method (e.g., low-rate
bladder or peristaltic pumping, bailing);
ii. the turbidity of the samples must be recorded at the time of collection;
iv. if split samples are required, then both the filtered and unfiltered samples must be
split.
i. if the unfiltered sample does not exceed SCGs, there is no need to analyze the
filtered sample; and
ii. if there is a question whether metal contaminants are naturally occurring or were
introduced through human-made activities, upgradient and background wells may be sampled using the
same procedure, with best efforts made to obtain an uncontaminated sample of the horizon which is
being screened, to allow a comparison of contaminant data to naturally occurring metal ion
concentrations in the aquifer matrix.
(a) Unless otherwise approved in advance by DER, laboratory data deliverables must be as
defined in this subdivision.
1. Category B laboratory data deliverables. Category B data deliverables which are defined
in the ASP and summarized in Appendix 2B:
i. must be submitted for the following types of samples, except for sites subject to
section 5.5 (UST closure):
(1) samples representing the final delineation of the nature and extent of
contamination for a SC or RI completed pursuant to Chapter 3;
(2) correlation samples as defined in section 2.4;
(3) confirmation and documentation samples as defined in paragraphs 1.3(b)3 and
11 and collected pursuant to section 5.4; and/or
Final DER-10 Page 47 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
(4) samples to determine closure of a system pursuant to sections 6.4 and/or 6.5;
and
ii. must include the preparation of a Data Usability Summary Report (DUSR)
prepared by a party independent from the laboratory performing the analysis for all samples when
Category B data deliverables are provided. This party must also be independent from any direct
involvement with the project, e.g. Project Manager or property owner. The required content of a DUSR
and qualifications for the person preparing the DUSR are detailed in Appendix 2B.
ii. all samples in all phases of a project when (a) TIC(s) has/have been identified as a
contaminant of concern; or
iii. if TICs are present and included on the discharge limits for a treatment system.
(b) Submission of data. Final/validated analytical data, with applicable data qualifiers are to be
summarized in tables for all reports prepared in accordance with this guidance.
1. When reporting analytical results below the method detection limit (MDL) or method
reporting limit (MRL), the result will be shown as non-detect (ND) along with the appropriate MDL or
MRL.
2. The data from individual samples, QA information (e.g., chromatograms) and other
supporting documentation identified by this section are not to be included in appendices or otherwise
included in the reports or work plans. This information and other supporting data identified in
subdivision 3.13(c) are to be included in a separate electronic data submission provided at the time of
the submission of the report/work plan.
(c) Electronic submissions. All required documentation identified by this Chapter must be
provided in an electronic format in accordance with section 1.15.
(a) The remedial party must ensure that suitable and verifiable data result from sampling and
analysis. To achieve this objective the quality assurance procedures detailed in this section must be
followed for all sampling and laboratory analysis activities.
1. Determination of need for a quality assurance officer (QAO). The remedial party shall
consult with DER during the development of the work plan, pursuant to section 3.3, to determine
whether a QAO will be required. A QAO will generally be necessary for large or complex projects,
such as those requiring non-routine analytical methods or sampling techniques (e.g., field testing
technologies).
i. will review sampling procedures and certify that the data was collected and
analyzed using the appropriate procedures;
ii. shall not be directly involved in the collection and analysis of samples from the site
for which they are the QAO.; and
iii. acts in conjunction with the project manager in the development of the sampling
and analytical portion of a site-specific quality assurance project plan (QAPP);
i. must not have another position on the project, such as a project or task manager,
that involves project productivity or profitability as a job performance criteria;
iii. must be familiar with analytical methods, data interpretation and validation, the
development of sampling plans, quality control procedures and auditing requirements and techniques.
3. As required by the approved work plan, during the course of the sampling and analytical
portion of the project the QAO or a designee may:
iii. interface with the data validator and/or the preparer of the DUSR to resolve
problems.
1. DER will reject analytical data from any laboratory which does not have a current and
Final DER-10 Page 49 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
appropriate certification for the parameters analyzed.
3. DER may reject data that do not meet the data quality objectives (e.g., if minimum
reporting limits specified in the approved work plan are not achieved, if the pressure in an air canister is
outside of the acceptable ranges, if holding times or temperature ranges are not met, etc.).
1. Laboratories will follow all quality assurance/quality control procedures specified in the
approved analytical methods.
3. Sample matrix cleanup. Sample matrix cleanup (in laboratory) must occur when chemical
interferences may be causing elevated reporting limits or inadequate contaminant identification or
quantitation. Sample matrix cleanup must conform to the procedures specified in the ASP.
4. Results from analysis of soils and sediments will be reported on a dry-weight basis,
except for those results required by the method to be otherwise reported. Analysis of vegetation tissue
shall be on a dry-weight basis. All other tissue analysis shall be reported on a wet-weight basis.
5. Samples must be sent to the laboratory as soon as practicable. Generally, samples should be
received by the laboratory within 48 hours of sampling.
(d) Soil vapor or air sampling and analysis. Where soil vapor, sub-slab vapor, crawl space air,
indoor air or outdoor air sampling is required, the work plan is to be prepared using the NYSDOH
Guidance for Evaluating Soil Vapor Intrusion in the State of New York (October 2006) or the most
current version must be used.
(a) All work plans must include quality assurance procedures to be followed for sampling and
analysis. All work plans and the QAPP, undertaken pursuant to an oversight document in accordance
with subdivision 1.2(d), must be submitted and approved in advance of sampling.
1. These procedures will be incorporated into the work plan or be supplied as a separate
stand alone document. If a separate QAPP is submitted, a summary of the sample information identified
in subparagraph 2.v below must also be included in the work plan.
Final DER-10 Page 50 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
2. The following should be included in either the work plan QAPP section or a standalone
QAPP:
i. the project scope and project goals as well as how the project relates to the overall
site investigation or remediation strategy;
ii. project organization, including the designation of a project manager, QAO and field
analyst, (if field analysis is planned). Resumes of these individuals must be included;
vi. a detailed description of sampling methods to be used and sample storage in the
field.
(b) If tissue samples are being collected, the QAPP for tissue analysis should follow the outline in
the USEPA publication Preparation Aids for the Development of Category I Quality Assurance Project
Plans (EPA/600/8-91/003).
(c) Analytical data must be provided in an electronic format in accordance with section 1.15.
(d) Quality assurance glossary. Quality assurance terms and definitions presented in this
subdivision must be used in preparing all documents related to quality assurance or control.
1. "Alteration" means altering a sample collected for analysis in any way other than by
adding a preservative, such as nitric acid to lower pH. Examples of alteration include, but are not limited
to: filtering, settling and decanting, centrifuging and decanting and acid extracting.
6. "Filtration" means the filtering of a groundwater or surface water sample, collected for
metals analysis, at the time of collection and prior to preservation. Filtering includes but is not limited to
the use of any membrane, fabric, paper or other filter medium, irrespective of pore size, to remove
particulates from suspension.
7. AFinal delineation sample@ means a sample taken to make a decision regarding the extent
of contamination at a site during the investigation and the design of the remedy or
confirmation/documentation sampling during remedial construction, which is to be analyzed by an
ELAP-certified laboratory.
10. AMinimum reporting limit@ means the lowest concentration at which an analyte can be
detected and which can be reported with a reasonable degree of accuracy. It is the lowest concentration
that can be measured, a lab-specific number, developed from minimum detection limits, and is also
referred to as the practical quantitation limit (PQL).
11. ANephelometric Turbidity Unit@ or "NTU" is the unit by which turbidity in a sample is
measured.
14. "Targeted compound" means a contaminant for which a specific analytical method is
designed to detect that potential contaminant both qualitatively and quantitatively.
15. "Target compound list plus 30" or "TCL+30" means the list of organic compounds
designated for analysis (TCL) as contained in the version of the EPA Contract Laboratory Program
Statement of Work for Organics Analysis, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration in effect as of the date on
which the laboratory is performing the analysis, and up to 30 non-targeted organic compounds (plus 30)
as detected by gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) analysis.
16. "Tentatively identified compound or TIC" means a chemical compound that is not on the
target compound list but is detected in a sample analyzed by a GC/MS analytical method. TICs are only
possible with methods using mass spectrometry as the detection technique. The compound is tentatively
identified using a mass spectral instrumental electronic library search and the concentration of the
compound estimated.
17. "Well development" means the application of energy to a newly installed well to
establish a good hydraulic connection between the well and the surrounding formation. During
development, fine-grained formation material that may have infiltrated the sand pack and/or well during
installation is removed, allowing water from the formation to enter the well without becoming turbid and
unrepresentative of groundwater in the formation.
(a) Site Characterization. This chapter sets forth guidance for characterization of a site, pursuant
to an oversight document identified in paragraph 1.2(d). The remedial program for a site requiring a site
characterization (SC) is completed in the steps detailed in this chapter, beginning with the site
characterization and concluding, where necessary, with a remedial investigation (RI).
1. The SC is designed to determine whether a site poses little or no threat to public health
and the environment or if it poses a threat and whether the threat requires further investigation. The SC
gathers the information necessary to characterize whether site-related contamination requires further
action pursuant to one of the DER remedial programs identified in section 1.2. The SC is a defined
activity for a SSF site. The SC is not generally performed for sites in the ERP, BCP or VCP, with the
exception of manufactured gas plant sites, provided however, that the need for a SC may be identified
by DER or the remedial party in any program.
ii. to the extent necessary, a field characterization. If field work is necessary, a work
plan, developed in accordance with section 3.3, will be implemented and a site characterization report
(SCR), prepared in accordance with section 3.13, will be completed and submitted to DER.
3. For those programs requiring a SC, based upon a review of the SCR, DER will:
i. find that no further action is required at the site, where DER determines:
ii. require a RI, pursuant to this chapter, where DER determines contamination is
present at levels and to an extent that warrants further delineation of the nature and extent of the
contamination to support selection of a remedy; or
4. If at any time contamination is identified at levels that indicate the need for a RI, prior to
the completion of the SC, in accordance with subdivisions (b) and (c) below, the SC may be
discontinued and the data and a RI work plan submitted as set forth in subdivision 3.13(b). The SC will
be discontinued:
Final DER-10 Page 55 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
i. at DER=s direction; or
(b) Evaluation of data relative to standards, criteria or guidance (SCGs),. The presence of
contaminants in any environmental media can be compared to applicable SCGs) for the environmental
media which may be present on the site.
1. At sites where soil contaminant concentrations are equal to or below unrestricted SCGs
no action or study is warranted because of soil contamination.
2. At sites where contaminants in any medium are above unrestricted SCGs, the remedial
party and DER must consider whether the contaminants presence at the site are:
ii. present, at levels and/or at a frequency in the samples collected from the site,
sufficient for DER to require a further delineation of the nature and extent of the contamination in a RI,
as set forth in paragraph 2 below.
3. Evaluation of soil contamination for the protection of public health. At sites where soil
contaminant concentrations are identified above the unrestricted soil SCGs, the remedial party should
consider the soil SCGs based upon the protection of public health set forth in CP Soil. When evaluating
these SCGs:
ii. if one or more applicable SCOs for the protection of public health are exceeded, this
alone does not trigger the need for remedial action or define ”unacceptable“ levels of contaminants in
soil. In assessing the need for further investigation or other action, DER will also consider that:
(1) soil SCOs are applicable statewide and do not account for many site-specific
considerations which could potentially result in higher levels (e.g. site-specific background conditions);
(2) concentrations of contaminants which are higher than the soil SCGs for the
current, future or reasonably anticipated future use of the site are not necessarily a health or
environmental concern;
(3) should a soil SCG for the current, future or reasonably anticipated future use
of the site be exceeded, the degree of public health and environmental concern depends on several
factors, including:
(A) the magnitude by which the concentration exceeds the SCG;
(B) the accuracy of the exposure assessments;
Final DER-10 Page 56 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
(C) other sources of exposure to the chemical; and
(D) the strength and quality of the available toxicological information on the
chemical; and
(E) the level of concern associated with SCO concentrations for the current,
future or reasonably anticipated future use of the site depends on the likelihood of exposure to soil
contamination at levels of potential concern to public health or to ecological receptors.
4. Evaluation of soil contamination for the protection of groundwater. At sites where soil
contaminant concentrations are identified above the unrestricted soil SCGs and there are impacts to
groundwater above the applicable groundwater SCGs, the remedial party should consider the soil SCGs
based upon the protection of groundwater set forth in CP Soil. When evaluating groundwater protection
soil SCGs:
ii. if one or more applicable soil SCGs for the protection of public health are exceeded,
this alone does not trigger the need for remedial action or define ”unacceptable“ levels of contaminants
in soil. In assessing the need for further investigation or other action DER will also consider the items
set forth in subparagraph 3.ii above.
5. Evaluation of soil contamination for the protection of ecological resources. At sites where
soil contaminant concentrations are identified above the unrestricted soil SCGs and an ecological
resource is identified, the remedial party should consider the soil SCGs based upon the protection of
ecological resources set forth in CP Soil. When evaluating ecological resources protection soil SCGs:
ii. if one or more applicable soil SCGs for the protection of public health are exceeded,
this alone does not trigger the need for remedial action or define ”unacceptable“ levels of contaminants
in soil. In assessing the need for further investigation or other action, DER will also consider the items
set forth in subparagraph 3.ii above.
6. Surface water and wetlands. If a surface water body or wetland is present on the site, or
sediments are present on a site where disposal may have occurred and contaminant concentrations are
identified above the applicable surface water or sediment SCGs, DER will consider the items set forth in
subparagraph 2.ii above in assessing the need for further investigation or other action.
ii. a public health exposure pathway was identified or potentially exists, as determined
by Appendix 3B;
iv. hazardous waste has been disposed which DER has determined represents a
significant threat to public health and the environment.
i. contaminants identified in media at the site do not exceed the applicable soil
SCG, the groundwater standard or another SCG applicable to the site;
ii. the SCGs for the current, future or reasonably anticipated future use of the site
are exceeded however the levels remain protective;
(c) Remedial investigation. A RI is necessary where data indicates disposal of contaminants at the
site has occurred and contamination is potentially present at levels and/or at frequencies sufficient for
DER to require a full delineation of the nature and extent of the contamination, to allow a decision by
DER regarding any necessary remediation.
i. delineate the areal and vertical extent of contaminants in all media at or emanating
from the site;
ii. determine the surface and subsurface characteristics of the site, including
topography, geology and hydrogeology, including depth to groundwater;
iii. identify the sources of contamination, the migration pathways, and actual or
potential receptors of contaminants on or through air, soil, bedrock, sediment, groundwater, surface
water, utilities, and structures at a contaminated site, without regard to property boundaries;
iv. collect and evaluate all data necessary for a fish and wildlife resource impact
analysis (FWRIA), pursuant to section 3.10, to determine all actual and potential adverse impact to fish
and wildlife resources;
v. collect and evaluate all data necessary to evaluate the actual and potential threats to
public health and the environment. This would include evaluating all current and future potential public
health exposure pathways, in accordance with Appendix 3B, as well as potential impacts to biota; and
Final DER-10 Page 58 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
vi. collect the data necessary to evaluate any release to an environmental medium and
develop remedial alternative(s) to address the release.
2. Where appropriate, the RI should also identify removal, treatment, containment, or other
interim remedial measures, pursuant to section 1.11:
(a) A SC or RI should be conducted based upon the information collected pursuant to the record
search requirements of Appendix 3A; the analysis, reporting and quality assurance requirements of
Chapter 2 and should satisfy the below noted media-specific requirements of this chapter.
5. The soil vapor, sub-slab vapor, crawl space air, indoor air or outdoor air sampling
requirements in section 3.6.
7. The surface water and sediment sampling requirements in section 3.8., if applicable.
9. The background soil, groundwater, sediment and surface water sampling requirements in
subsections 3.5.3, 3.7.3, 3.8.3 and 3.8.4, where applicable.
10. The fish and wildlife impact analysis requirements in section 3.10.
(b) If required pursuant to an oversight document or other applicable rule, the remedial party will
submit work plans pursuant to section 3.3 and reports pursuant to sections 3.13 and/or 3.14 in
accordance with the schedules contained in the oversight document.
(d) Composite sampling should not be conducted for volatile contaminants. Compositing of
samples for other contaminants is generally not acceptable when establishing the nature and extent of
contamination in a SC or RI and for documentation or confirmation samples. Except when sampling for
semi-volatile compounds associated with tank investigations as detailed in section 3.9 and in Table
5.4(e)10, compositing of non-volatile organic compound (VOC) samples can be proposed for DER
approval in an applicable work plan.
(a) A SC investigation is undertaken based on the information from the records search report to
determine whether contaminants are present at the site at levels above unrestricted SCGs, groundwater
standards or other applicable SCGs for the unrestricted use of a site.
(b) It may be appropriate to phase the investigation effort for the SC so that the areas of concern
most likely to be contaminated above the applicable SCGs are sampled first and if confirmed will result
in termination of the SC and initiation of a RI. In accordance with this provision it should be recognized
that the full scope of work identified by subdivision (c) below may not be required.
(c) Sampling performed as part of the SC should be identified in the work plan for all potentially
contaminated areas of concern, whether relating to current or former uses of the site.
2. Sample locations should be based on professional judgment, area history, discolored soil,
stressed vegetation, drainage patterns, field instrument measurements, odor or other field indicators.
3. Sampling locations should be designed in accordance with sections 3.4 through 3.9 and
3.11.
4. If access to sampling locations required pursuant to sections 3.4 through 3.11 is not
feasible due to physical obstructions or safety hazards, and no feasible sampling alternatives are
available, upon approval by DER, sampling may be modified subject to the technical criteria in
paragraph 1.6(c)3. Where this is necessary:
ii. for verbal approvals, in accordance with subparagraph i above, the SCR should also
note the date of the verbal approval and the name of the DER representative who granted the approval
should be provided in written correspondence to DER within seven days of the verbal approval.
(d) All sampling methods and laboratory analyses should be conducted in accordance with
Chapter 2. The full Target Compound List/Target Analyte List and TICs, in accordance with
subparagraph 2.1(a)1.ii, should be sampled and analyzed for unless otherwise approved by DER.
(a) A conceptual site model should be used, at the outset of a RI, to develop a general
understanding of the site and to evaluate potential human exposure pathways and impacts to the
environment. This will assist in identifying and setting priorities for the activities to be conducted. The
conceptual site model should identify potential sources of contamination, types of contaminants and
affected media, release mechanisms and potential contaminant pathways and actual/potential human and
environmental receptors.
(b) Sampling of all media which exist at the site should be conducted to delineate the nature and
extent of contamination and to provide a basis for the evaluation of remedial alternatives.
(c) Contaminant concentrations in background soils, sediments, surface water and groundwater
may be used in the assessment to help determine whether a contaminant is related to a site. The RI work
plan should consider the sampling necessary to evaluate background levels in accordance with this
subdivision where appropriate for the remedial program.
1. The number and location of background surface soil samples must follow the procedure
set forth in subsection 3.5.3 to establish site-specific background soil contaminant concentrations.
3. Upgradient sediment and surface water samples (which are outside the influence of site
contamination) may be used to establish background contaminant concentrations in sediments and
surface water as detailed in subsections 3.8.3 and 3.8.4.
(d) Data quality objectives are to be considered when deciding the sample collection technique,
the type of analysis and the level of data documentation.
1. Data quality objectives may include: defining the site=s physical characteristics, physical
and chemical characteristics of contaminant sources, nature and extent of contamination, potential
receptors and associated exposure pathways, the fate and transport of contaminants, the development
and evaluation of remedial alternatives, identifying SCGs, identifying the need for treatability studies
and supporting future enforcement or cost recovery activities.
(e) The SCGs which pertain to the site location, site contaminants, and potential remedial actions
must be identified and the probable SCGs must be listed in the remedial investigation report (RIR).
1. The chemical-specific SCGs must also be considered when preparing the sampling
protocols for the site to ensure the use of appropriate analytical detection limits or minimum reporting
limits.
2. A listing of SCGs applicable to the RI is included on the DEC website identified in the
table of contents.
Final DER-10 Page 61 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
(f) If a building interior investigation is required by the criteria in section 3.4, it should be
included as part of the RI.
(a) This section provides the basis for the preparation of any investigation work plans including
those associated with SCs, RIs, pilot testing, pumping tests, predesign investigations/delineations or
confirmatory/documentation sampling undertaken pursuant to this guidance.
1. Investigation work plans, once approved by DER, are used in the field to govern the
identification of all field investigation aspects of a site remedial program. At a minimum, the work plan
must include the elements identified in this section and the investigations must be supervised by a
qualified environmental professional.
2. The work plan for a SC or RI should be prepared after the records search (a previously
documented records search may be sufficient, if consistent with Appendix 3A) and a site visit. A site
visit should be conducted before the work plan is developed to confirm and update the results of the
records search and to note any access restrictions or other site conditions (e.g., the land uses around the
site such as adjacent residential properties, schools, day care centers, etc.) which may affect the level of
investigation. If the investigation is directed at either a specific discharge event or an underground
storage tank or tank system, then a full records search may not be needed.
3. The work plan must include site-specific QA/QC protocols to be used during the
investigation, which are developed in accordance with the requirements of section 2.3. The QA/QC
section of the work plan is to:
ii. indicate the sampling and analytical protocols and data deliverables to be followed
for obtaining and evaluating data of sufficient quality to support decisions during the remedial process;
iii. identify data evaluation requirements (data validation and/or a DUSR) and qualified
data reviewers, in accordance with section 2.2, section 2.4 and Appendix 2B; and
iv. assure that the analytical methods identified provide a low enough detection limit or
minimum reporting limit to compare with all applicable SCGs. A list of potential SCGs is available on
DEC’s website identified in the table of contents.
4. Include a HASP and CAMP, consistent with section 1.9, to be used during field activities.
In addition:
i. community air monitoring consistent with section 1.9 may be needed for sites
contaminated with VOCs or where particulates might be generated by investigative activities or
nuisance odors may be encountered; and
ii. in addition to any worker safety measures required by law or regulation, where site
conditions are not already well known appropriate monitoring instruments such as organic vapor
analyzers (OVAs), photoionization detectors (PIDs), explosimeters, oxygen detectors and radiation
Final DER-10 Page 62 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
detectors are to be used to ensure personal safety and assist with characterization.
(b) Investigation work plans. The work plan must define the scope of work for the required
investigation. In general, the elements of an investigation identified by this subdivision should be
considerations for any investigation. Additional investigation elements which are more typically
appropriate only for an RI are provided in subdivision (c) below.
1. A summary of any significant results of the records search and site visit, undertaken
pursuant to paragraph(a)1 above:
ii. the presentation of any prior sampling locations on a separate figure. and analytical
results with a summary and interpretation of those results.
i. the physical conditions of the site and surroundings, including a general description
of soils, geology, hydrogeology and topography, including site drainage patterns; and
ii. a copy of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topographic
quadrangle that includes the site and an area of at least a one-half-mile radius around the site. This map
should be the USGS revision in effect at the time of the report and must clearly note the site location.
3. A summary table of proposed sampling locations and analysis should be presented in the
work plan text or on the sample location map specified in paragraph 4 below, which includes:
i. location (use the same alpha or numeric designation as shown on the scaled
sampling location map);
ii. matrix (waste, soil, surface water, groundwater, sediment, air, soil vapor or biota as
appropriate);
iii. sample depth (soils/ soil vapor/sediments/surface water) or water bearing zone to be
sampled (groundwater);
iv. analytical parameters for each sample (for example, TAL metals or semi-volatile
compounds);
vi. the rationale for each sample (for example, to delineate the nature and extent of
contamination, to assess potential human exposure/environmental impacts or to support potential
remedies); and
ii. is scaled appropriate to the area of the site and consistently applied in all reporting;
5. A detailed schedule for all activities, including time lines and target dates for the start and
completion of all field activities and submission of all reports to DER.
6. A list of the names, contact information and roles of the principal personnel who will
participate in the investigation including the project manager, contractor and subcontractor contacts.
Qualifications of these personnel:
ii. if the principal personnel designated on the project change, information for new
personnel must be submitted to DER for approval, as set forth in the oversight document for the
remedial program.
7. The name(s) and contact information for the remedial party contact and, if applicable a
facility contact for the location the work is taking place.
(c) RI work plans. In addition to the requirements for investigations noted in subdivision (b)
above, a more detailed level of effort or the investigation of additional aspects of a site may be required
for an RI work plan.
1. In addition to the descriptions identified in paragraph (b)2 above, an RI work plan must:
i. identify and provide a map of all wetland areas on or near the site including
wetlands in the "National Wetlands Inventory" and/or DEC regulated wetlands;
ii. the usage, distance to, flow direction (if appropriate) and names of surface water
bodies, as well as for an initial survey the locations of public/private drinking water supply wells within
at least one half mile of the site with emphasis upon water bodies and supply wells topographically or
hydraulically down gradient of the site that may be in the path of site discharges or runoff. A map which
shows the location of residences and other sensitive receptors must be included;
iii. land use within a half mile radius of the site boundary including proximity of the
site to sensitive human or ecological receptors (e.g., residences, schools, parks, wetlands) including a
database search of other known contaminated sites or spill sites in this area. See the discussion of land
use factors to be considered in remedy selection in subdivision 4.2(i) to guide the identification; and
3. Fish and wildlife resource impact analysis (FWIRA). Proposed sampling and analysis for
the FWRIA Resource Characterization (Part 1) and Ecological Impact Assessment (Part 2), if
determined necessary by DEC. To determine the FWRIA steps necessary for a work plan:
i. see subsection 3.10.1 to determine whether a FWRIA Part 1 is necessary and should
be included in the scope of the RI work plan; and
ii. if required based on the Part 1, a FWRIA Part 2 using the scope of work for
gathering the necessary data to perform the evaluations identified in subsection 3.10.2.
4. Qualitative exposure assessment. The qualitative exposure assessment for both human
health and/or fish and wildlife resources required to be completed during the RI to qualitatively
determine the route, intensity, frequency and duration of actual or potential exposures to contaminants.
This assessment should:
i. describe the nature and size of the population currently exposed or which may
reasonably be expected to be exposed to the contaminants that are present at or migrating from a site;
ii. include a determination of the reasonably anticipated future land use of the site and
affected off-site areas;
iv. characterize the exposure setting, identifying current and reasonably foreseeable
exposure pathways;
vii. include a full delineation of the nature and extent of off-site impacts; unless the
remedial party is a volunteer in the BCP, in which event off-site field information is only needed
sufficient to identify the presence of contamination and support the qualitative off-site exposure
assessment for these sites.
(d) Work plans for evaluating MNA. When submitting an investigation work plan for a site where
Final DER-10 Page 65 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
MNA of groundwater may be evaluated during remedy selection, the remedial party should collect
sufficient data to delineate the source of the contamination and to demonstrate to DER that groundwater
contaminant concentrations will decrease to applicable groundwater or surface water standards through
degradation, retardation, or dispersion under present site conditions, in a reasonable time frame, and if
applicable that any human exposures will be addressed during the MNA time frame.
i. remedies to reduce or eliminate the contaminant mass representing the source of the
groundwater contamination, as determined by free or residual product, soil exceeding the protection of
groundwater SCO and dissolved phase delineation and dissolved contaminant concentrations;
ii. hydrogeologic and geochemical data used to demonstrate and quantify natural
attenuation, such as dissolved oxygen, nitrate, iron, manganese, sulfate, methane content,
oxidation/reduction potential or others as appropriate:
vi. other wells and the location of those used for potable water supply;
3. Monitored natural attenuation will only be considered a viable alternative where the
source of contamination has been addressed pursuant to paragraph 4.1(d)2. Delineation of the source
should:
i. adequately delineate the extent of any NAPL and/or grossly contaminated media in
the unsaturated and saturated zones; and
ii. for MNA to be evaluated as a remedy, obtain sufficient data to develop treatment or
removal alternatives for the source, if practicable, or containment if treatment or removal are not
practicable, during the remedy selection evaluation in Chapter 4.
4. Consider the extent of soil contamination in the unsaturated zone, to allow the
development of a MNA remedy(ies) which will remediate these soils to the applicable soil remediation
Final DER-10 Page 66 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
SCGs in accordance with a schedule approved by DER;
8. Obtain sufficient information with respect to soil vapor intrusion to evaluate whether
actions are necessary to address exposures related to soil vapor intrusion. This determination will be
made on a case by case basis, pursuant to section 3.6; and
9. Demonstrate that predicted impacts to potential receptors are consistent with groundwater
standards. This should include, without limitation, information pertaining to:
ii. the locations which are or may be suitable for the placement of public water supply
wells;
(e) Management of investigation derived waste (IDW). An investigation work plan is also to
identify provisions for management of IDW. This subdivision sets forth guidance for the handling and
disposal of contaminated soil and water generated during an investigation, in a manner that does not
pose a threat to public health and the environment and is compliant with applicable rules and
regulations. Absent a regulatory exemption, the transport, storage and disposal of IDW is generally
subject to one or more solid or hazardous waste regulations (e.g., 6 NYCRR Parts 360, 364 and the 370
series). Unless specifically noted herein, no guidance provided in this subdivision is intended to impose
more stringent requirements than the applicable regulations regarding the handling, transport, storage or
disposal of IDW.
1. Drill cutting and spoil disposal from on-site locations. Drill cuttings and other soil
generated on-site during an investigation from the installation of soil borings, monitoring wells or
geoprobes are presumed to be contaminated. Such cuttings and spoil:
ii. may be disposed at the site within the borehole that generated them to within 12
inches of the surface or if the site is a residential site backfilling may be to within 24 inches of the
surface, unless:
(1) free product, NAPL or grossly contaminated soil, are present in the cuttings;
Final DER-10 Page 67 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
(2) the borehole will be used for the installation of a monitoring well (cuttings
may only be used to backfill boreholes installed for soil sampling);
(3) the borehole has:
(A) penetrated an aquitard, aquiclude or other confining layer; or
(B) extended into bedrock;
(4) backfilling the borehole with cuttings will create a significant path for vertical
movement of contaminants. Soil additives (bentonite) may be added to the cuttings to reduce
permeability;
(5) the soil cannot fit into the borehole as set forth in subparagraph i. above.
iii. cuttings meeting any of the conditions set forth in subparagraph i above, which
cannot be disposed in the borehole must be containerized and handled as set forth in paragraph 3 below;
and
v. if the site includes streets, sidewalks or other publicly accessible areas, the off-site
provisions in paragraph 2 should be applied to samples collected in those areas.
2. Drill cutting and spoil disposal from off-site locations not know to be contaminated.
Cuttings and spoils generated from off-site locations during an investigation are to be managed as
follows:
ii. cuttings from off-site boring locations are considered non contaminated until testing
indicates otherwise, unless field screening results of the soil are positive for the presence of
contamination; and
iii. the borehole will be filled with soil or a soil bentonite mixture and restored as set
forth in clauses 1.iv. (1) or (2) above.
3. Drill cutting and soil disposal from known contaminated locations. Representative
samples of drill cuttings or other IDW from known contaminated locations at a site or from off-site
locations, identified in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 above, must be characterized for disposal.
Such samples must be analyzed to ensure proper classification, treatment and disposal and where
determined to be:
ii. soil not characterized as a solid or hazardous waste may be placed at the site, or
returned to the off site location where it originated, in a manner set forth in the DER-approved work
plan.
4. Test pits. When excavating test pits to delineate the extent of contamination, the soil
removed from the excavation is to be managed as follows:
i. any drums or other containers encountered, as well as NAPL or other free product,
will be over packed or otherwise containerized for appropriate off-site disposal, as discussed in
subparagraph 2.ii above;
ii. where subparagraph i above does not apply, material removed may be placed back
in the excavation in the same general strata from which it was removed; and
iii. the excavation shall be managed so as not to contaminate the surface of the site, all
soil removed will be placed on plastic.
5. Investigation generated water/fluid handling and disposal. All water/fluid resulting from
well development and/or well purging before sampling must be collected, handled and
discharged/disposed of pursuant to applicable guidance and regulations. Water/fluid generated during
an investigation:
(1) 6 NYCRR Part 364 will not apply to the transport of the containers from the
point of generation to a temporary on-site storage area, or treatment facility;
(2) the containers must be securely staged, pending appropriate disposal as set
forth in subparagraph ii below;
(3) NAPL shall never be released to the ground;
(4) where containers include water mixed with NAPL, the water can be decanted
from the NAPL (or vice versa) as long as a measurable layer of water remains with the NAPL, and the
decanted water is NAPL- and/or sheen-free;
(5) groundwater from several monitoring wells may be combined provided they
are associated with the same disposal site and aquifer; and
(6) NAPL may be collected from several containers and combined provided it all
comes from monitoring wells associated with the same disposal site;
ii. it may be stored on-site in labeled containers in an area with secondary containment
awaiting treatment and/or disposal, in accordance with applicable DEC waste management regulations
(e.g., 6 NYCRR Parts 360, 364 and the 370 series) or other provisions approved by DER. The contents
Final DER-10 Page 69 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
of the containers will be
(1) properly treated or disposed of, when any of the following are observed:
(A) visual evidence of contamination, consisting of discoloration, sheens,
free product or NAPL;
(B) olfactory evidence of contamination; or
(C) concentrations of contaminants above groundwater standards at levels of
concern are known to be present in the monitoring wells, based on previous sampling of the
groundwater; or
(2) if none of the conditions described in clause ii.(1) apply, the containerized
water may be:
(A) recharged to unpaved ground into the same groundwater unit, within or
directly adjacent to a source area in a manner which does not result in surface water runoff, with DER
approval; or
(B) if a remedial treatment system designed to treat water is operational at
the site the water may be added to the influent of the treatment system; and
iii. sediment that settles out of the IDW, provided there is no NAPL or free product
present, must be handled and disposed in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 3 above, as appropriate for
the location of the well.
1. The remedial party may elect to incorporate the collection of data necessary for a natural
resource injury evaluation into a RI work plan.
2. The goal of a natural resource injury evaluation would be to collect data necessary to
assess the existence of natural resource injuries, including the nature and extent of injury to soil,
sediments, surface or groundwater, flora and fauna, caused by contamination. DEC’s Division of Fish,
Wildlife and Marine Resources should be consulted in the development of protocols for such data
collection.
(g) The work plan should be organized to include the following as sections or appendices.
Available investigation work plan template(s) available on the DEC website identified in the table of
contents should be used, as directed by the DER project manager.
(h) Work plans for other investigations undertaken in support of other phases of the remedial
program (e.g., pilot studies, pre-design delineations) should utilize any applicable guidance provided in
this chapter.
(a) The remedial program for a site is intended to investigate contamination of the real property
comprising the site however, as set forth in paragraph 1 below, the SC or Ri of building interiors may be
necessary. Where necessary it should be performed in accordance with this section.
i. contaminants inside the building have the potential to migrate to and impact the
environment outside of the building; or
ii. contamination or contaminated media outside the building have the potential to
migrate into the building; or
3. Requirements for investigating contaminants outside the building, which have the
potential to migrate into buildings, potentially impacting public health, will be specified by DER on a
site-specific basis.
(b) If evidence of prior activities or areas of concern are identified that may have impacted the
building structure, an investigation must be undertaken as specified by DER.
(c) The investigation of asbestos, asbestos contaminate material (ACM) and lead-based paint
should follow applicable state, federal and local guidance and regulations and. For asbestos or ACM,
consultation with the NYS Department of Labor is required.
3.5 Soil
(a) SC soil investigations should satisfy the applicable elements of this subsection.
1. Initial site survey. The presence of potential source areas to be considered by the initial
site survey are those AOCs identified in subdivision 1.8(c). Where the potential for buried drums, tanks,
deposits of waste or other discrete and identifiable AOCs may exist the use test pits, ground penetrating
radar, magnetometry, electromagnetic, or other techniques capable of detecting metal containers and
other waste to an average depth of 20 feet or deeper should be considered.
2. Based on the findings of this survey and/or other AOCs identified by the records search
to be undertaken in accordance with Appendix 3A and reported as set forth in section 3.12, soil
sampling to characterize contaminant levels in surface or subsurface soil should be planned where:
iii. aerial photographic history of the site indicates the presence of drums, tanks or
waste in or adjacent to regraded and/or filled areas;
iv. historic fire insurance maps, or other documentation, has identified the past
presence of structures or operations (e.g., former manufactured gas plants) which are likely sources of
contamination;
(b) Surface soil sampling. Samples, except those being analyzed for VOCs as noted below,
should be collected based upon the type of exposure or disposal to be assessed by the sample.
1. Assessing human exposures to soil. When assessing the human exposure resulting from
soil contamination related to:
i. incidental soil ingestion, inhalation of soil or dermal contact with soil; soil samples
should be collected from a depth of 0 to 2 inches below the vegetative cover, unless VOCs are the only
contaminants of concern in which case the sampling should be from 0 to 6 inches; and/or
2. Assessing ecological resource exposure to soil. When assessing the impact of soil
Final DER-10 Page 72 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
contamination on ecological resources samples should be collected from:
ii. a deeper soil horizon, typically from 12 to 24 inches below ground surface.
3. Where both human and ecological resource exposures are being evaluated, samples at
each depth may be required.
(c) Subsurface soil sampling. Samples should be collected via soil borings and/or test pitting for
chemical analysis and to provide a profile of subsurface conditions in identified or suspected AOCs and
in other areas as needed to characterize the site.
1. Boring logs should be prepared by a qualified individual, reporting to the site QEP, for all
soil samples to document subsurface conditions including, without limitation:
iv. to document physical evidence, if present, including but not limited to:
ii. unified soil classification system (USCS) which is set forth in ASTM 2488.
3. Known hazardous waste, concentrated solid or semi-solid substances, soils with free
product or NAPL and/or grossly contaminated media will not be returned to the subsurface and must be
disposed of in accordance with applicable guidance and regulations. If contaminated materials are
returned to the ground, in accordance with subdivision 3.3(e), the remedial party must address the
presence of this contamination as part of any remedial action.
4. Soil sample locations should be documented by the use of GPS. They may also be
photo-documented.
iii. other evidence is found which indicates the possible presence of contamination.
7. If the designated subsurface soil sampling point is within the saturated zone, when
sample recovery is possible, a sample of the saturated soil should be collected and analyzed.
(d) The use of expedited site investigation approaches, such as the USEPA Triad, are encouraged.
1. Expedited site investigation involves systematic project planning, use of dynamic work
strategies and field screening techniques.
ii. should be detailed in a work plan and approved by DER before use.
3. Field testing sampling plans should be prepared in accordance with Appendix 2A.
(a) The RI should include provisions to identify all soil which may contain contaminants above
the unrestricted use soil SCGs.
1. Soil sampling during the RI is intended to determine the areal and vertical extent of those
areas found to be contaminated. Sampling locations should be biased toward locations expected to be
contaminated or source areas, but must also provide sufficient coverage of the entire site to allow
decisions relative to land use restrictions.
2. In addition, soil data is used in the exposure assessment to identify any actual, or
potential for, exposure.
iii. focus test pit and/or soil boring locations to areas of subsurface anomalies.
5. Soil gas surveys may be used to identify areas of soil contamination which are a source of
soil vapor, in accordance with section 3.6.
2. For suspected surface discharges. Soil samples to be analyzed/screened for VOCs should
be collected to minimize contaminant loss during sampling. Each sample should be field screened with a
properly calibrated photoionization detector or flame ionization detector (PID/FID) or other suitable
instrument. When field screening is used the following should apply:
i. at a minimum, the initial 24 inches of soil rather than the surface soil sampling
depths identified in subdivision 3.5.1(b) should be field screened for the presence of VOCs; and
ii. if field measurement readings are detected above background, the sampling should
be extended until background readings are achieved, or groundwater or bedrock is encountered; or
iii. a sample from the interval registering the highest field-measurement reading should
be collected and analyzed for VOCs.
1. Subsurface soil sampling from soil borings, geoprobes and/or test pits/trenches, in
addition to the areas described in paragraphs 3.5.1(a)2 and (c)6, is required in any area:
i. where it is likely that contaminants have migrated downward from the surface or
were released below ground surface; for example, from dry wells, leach fields, injection wells or
underground storage tanks;
ii. where the investigation of a geophysical or soil vapor anomaly suggests a possible
contaminant source;
iii. where waste was or was reported to have been disposed. Such sampling should
delineate the boundaries of the area impacted by the disposal; and
2. If VOCs are confirmed in the subsurface, the investigation should evaluate any
Final DER-10 Page 75 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
subsurface utilities, structures (with both basement and slab on grade) and/or other preferential pathways
to identify additional sampling that may be warranted to determine whether actions are needed to
address exposures associated with soil vapor intrusion, as a result of the soil contamination.
3. When any soil boring, geoprobe or test pit/trench is installed, written logs of the findings
are to be prepared and maintained which include, but are not limited to:
ii. documentation and/or observations regarding the interface between waste and
native soils (if appropriate);
iii. identification of the groundwater table and related observations, such as floating
product or LNAPL;
iv. identification of the mobility of any contaminants, NAPL or free product identified;
and
(d) The investigation should gather sufficient data on contamination present in soil to evaluate the
need for remediation or mitigation at the site.
(a) This guidance is intended for soil background evaluations conducted as a component of a SC,
RI or, where appropriate, at another element of the remedial program. Site background evaluations are
not considered for use on-site at BCP sites.
1. If a suspected contaminant is identified in soil in excess of the unrestricted soil SCGs, the
guidance in this subsection may be followed to demonstrate to DER that the concentration of the
element, chemical or contaminant in the soils may be due to background conditions.
2. Area-wide soil background studies, intended to be applied to more than one site, may
require an expanded level of effort to be determined after consultation with DEC.
3. Background evaluations typically focus on surface soils, although the same approach is
applicable to deeper soil horizons.
(b) The remedial party may evaluate soil background conditions at a site using the approaches
discussed in this subdivision. The evaluation of background conditions consists of a two-step process.
The first step is gaining an understanding of soil conditions on-site and the second step is understanding
the soil conditions off-site.
ii. (an) element(s) or chemical concentration detected in the soil at the site are within
the ranges reported in appropriate references for naturally or regionally occurring background levels for
New York. In doing so, the remedial party needs to consider the applicability of the rural background
study (see subparagraph 2.ii, below) to the study area;
iii. the distribution of the element, chemical or contaminant in the soil does not follow
a concentration gradient indicative of disposal or a discharge; and
2. Off-site soil conditions. The remedial party may employ one of the following three
approaches to gain an understanding of off-site soil conditions:
ii. use the rural background study conducted by DEC, in collaboration with the New
York State Department of Health, as part of the development of the soil cleanup objectives set forth at 6
NYCRR Part 375 as background soil conditions and available in the technical support document [see 6
NYCRR 375-6.2(b)]; or
(c) Site-specific background evaluation. A site-specific background evaluation will consider soil
samples collected and analyzed from no less than five background sample locations in the vicinity of the
site as detailed in this subdivision to assist in the characterization of site-related contamination. An
evaluation intended to develop site-specific cleanup objectives is addressed in subdivision (d) below.
i. a depth which conforms to the same depths of the surface soils sampled during the
surface soil investigation;
ii. the 0 to 2 foot soil horizon if no surface soil samples were collected at an AOC or
from the site.; or
ii. wherever possible, from locations which are topographically upgradient and upwind
of contaminant sources; and
Final DER-10 Page 77 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
iii. off the site being investigated, unless the site being investigated encompasses a
large area which includes separable areas having no identified AOCs.
iii. areas which receive runoff from areas identified in subparagraphs i or ii above or
adjacent contaminated sites;
iv. storm drain outfall discharges or ditches receiving runoff from the site or adjacent
contaminated sites; or
4. Background samples generally should not be collected from the following areas unless it
can be demonstrated that the contamination in the area is due to generally occurring pollution related to
the urban or industrial nature (anthropogenic) of the surrounding area and the results will be compared
to samples taken from similar areas on the site:
iv. storm drains or ditches receiving runoff not impacted by the site or adjacent
contaminated sites; or
5. Background studies should use the same sampling and analytical methods as were used
for other site samples.
6. Samples collected from a site or an area of concern cannot be averaged for background
comparisons, rather the individual samples should be evaluated, in consultation with DEC and the
NYSDOH to determine a background level for the site. Except for on-site at a BCP site, if contaminant
concentrations are found at any sampling location on the site exceeding the background level developed
from the background samples, the RI may delineate the extent of the contamination based on the
background level, rather than the applicable unrestricted soil SCG.
1. The remedial party should, after consulting with DER, submit a work plan outlining the
proposed methods for the additional sampling and any proposed statistical evaluation of samples.
3. Any statistical analysis should be in designed consistent with the rural background study
data analysis methods provided in Appendix D, Section B of the New York State Brownfield Cleanup
Program Development of Soil Cleanup Objectives Technical Support Document (TSD) September 2006
or any subsequently approved applicable document, which is available on DEC’s website identified in
the table of contents.
(a) For guidance relative to recommended sampling protocols, quality assurance/quality control
of sampling, analytical methods and the use of field laboratories/mobile gas chromatographs, as well as
any updates to the sampling requirements detailed above, the most recent NYSDOH guidance document
should be used. Soil vapor is considered an environmental medium that must be characterized during the
investigation in accordance with this section.
(b) This section focuses on the collection of data which is used to determine whether actions are
needed to address exposures to volatile chemical contamination related to soil vapor intrusion (SVI).
Volatile chemical contamination may result from the presence of VOCs as defined at paragraph
1.3(b)76, and certain semi-volatile compounds such as napthalene.
1. The soil vapor pathway is to be investigated at any site where buildings are presently
located, or may be constructed in the future, when:
ii. based on known prior industrial, commercial or other land uses, a source of volatile
chemical contamination in subsurface soil or groundwater may be suspected.
2. A soil vapor investigation should be used to evaluate the potential for SVI into buildings
on or near a site during the:
i. SC, only in the event where the SC would conclude that no further investigation is
warranted, as set forth in subparagraph 3.1(a)3.i, and no RI is necessary; or
3. The sampling to evaluate exposures related to SVI detailed in this section is applicable to
Final DER-10 Page 79 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
any building or structure, whether in residential, commercial or industrial use. In evaluating the level of
effort necessary for a given property, after consultation with DER and NYSDOH, the preparation of a
site-specific work plan may consider:
ii. hobbies or other activities conducted in a residential property which require the
storage or use of VOCs.
(c) The initiation of investigation activities for characterizing the nature and extent of
contamination in soil vapor should be determined on a site-by-site basis, taking into consideration the
factors identified by this subdivision.
1. If little is known about the current site conditions, then the evaluation of contamination in
other environmental media, specifically groundwater and soil, should usually proceed first. The results
of these initial investigations, as well as other site information, should then be used to guide an
investigation of soil vapor intrusion, such as the selection of locations for subsurface vapor samples
based on likely migration pathways.
2. At sites where the investigation of SVI is necessary, and the locations of suspected source
areas are reasonably known, it is prudent to initiate sampling sooner rather than later, given the iterative
nature of the sampling process.
(d) An investigation of the potential for SVI into buildings is required where volatile chemical
vapors, such as from VOCs, some SVOCs and mercury, are a concern.
ii. NAPL;
iv. subsurface waste storage or holding structures, (e.g., underground storage tanks, gas
holders, etc.).
Final DER-10 Page 80 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
2. Site-specific conditions and findings often warrant different approaches, for example if
underground utilities or the trenches they are installed in act as preferential pathways for soil vapor
migration.
3. The process of investigating and evaluating the SVI pathway during the RI is an iterative
one. During the RI, multiple rounds of sampling of subsurface vapor or structures may be necessary to:
iii. characterize the nature and extent of subsurface vapor, when appropriate, or indoor
air contamination, similar to the delineation of a groundwater plume.
i. whether soil vapor is contaminated, the nature and extent of this contamination and,
if possible, the source(s) of the contamination;
ii. current and potential exposures to the contaminated soil vapor; and
iii. what actions, if any, are needed to address exposures and to remediate soil vapor
contamination.
5. An investigation involves the collection of the four types of samples which are discussed
in detail in subdivisions (e) through (h) of this section. The samples comprising a SVI investigation are:
i. subsurface soil vapor samples not from beneath a foundation or slab of a building,
should be determined on a site-specific basis in consideration of the site conceptual model and sampling
objectives, area to consider for this sampling include:
iii. indoor air from the lowest floor of potentially impacted buildings, including
crawlspaces;
iv. outdoor (ambient) air from locations near the area under investigation for soil vapor
intrusion; and
v. in buildings with sumps, water samples may also be collected to assess exposures
associated with direct off-gassing of volatile chemicals from contaminated groundwater.
(e) Soil vapor samples. Samples of the subsurface soil vapor or soil gas are collected to
characterize the nature and extent of subsurface vapor contamination in the vadose zone.
1. Soil vapor sampling results may be affected by a number of geologic and human-made
factors; therefore they should not be considered definitive indicators of the potential for SVI related
exposures.
2. Soil vapor samples should be viewed as a tool for focusing attention on structures which
may be impacted by SVI rather than as a vehicle for determining the specific nature of the exposure.
Consequently, soil vapor samples may not need to be collected at sites where other data are sufficient for
identifying potentially impacted structures.
i. from both on-and off-site areas, as described in subdivision (c) above; and
(1) the stratigraphic horizon immediately above the water table; and
(2) at a stratigraphic horizon thought to reflect potential conditions at nearby sub-
slabs, not necessarily the foundation depth.
4. If available, existing environmental data (e.g., groundwater and soil data) and site
background information should be used to select locations for sampling soil vapor. Soil vapor samples
should be collected to get a general understanding of the nature and extent of soil vapor contamination.
Samples should be considered in areas:
ii. where elevated readings were obtained with field equipment (e.g., PID) during
previous soil and groundwater investigations; and
ii. subsurface characteristics, such as soil stratigraphy, buried structures or clay lenses;
and
6. The following must be included in all soil vapor sampling work plans:
i. a figure illustrating proposed sampling locations (with respect to both areal position
and depth) and relevant on-site and off-site features; and
(f) Sub-slab vapor samples. Samples of sub-slab vapor are collected to characterize the nature of
subsurface vapor contamination beneath buildings.
3. Sub-slab vapor samples collected directly beneath buildings provide the most reliable and
representative information regarding SVI potential, and should be collected when possible. The
distribution of volatile chemical contaminants beneath a building slab:
i. may not be homogeneous (i.e., a sub-slab vapor sample collected from one area of a
building may differ by as much as an order of magnitude from a sample collected in another area of the
building); and
ii. sub-slab data from a particular sample should not be viewed in isolation, but rather,
should be viewed in the context of results from other sub-slab samples from the same and/or nearby
buildings and in the context of the results from sampling other environmental media.
ii. at a minimum one sampling event must be during the winter heating season with
windows and doors closed and the heating system operating, unless previous no-heating season
sampling has already established the need for mitigation.
5. When selecting buildings for sub-slab vapor sampling, the buildings sampled should
Final DER-10 Page 83 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
include, at a minimum:
ii. those where positive responses with field equipment (e.g., PID) suggest a
completed migration pathway; and
ii. from the soil or aggregate immediately below the basement slab or slab-on-grade;
and
iii. from each representative foundation area or type the number of sub-slab vapor
samples required in a building depends upon the size of the building and the number of slabs and/or
foundation types or extensions. Multiple sub-slab vapor samples may also be considered if previous
sampling results differ from the conceptual site model or from the results of nearby structures or in
structures with unexpectedly high indoor air results.
7. Sub-slab vapor sampling is not applicable for buildings with earthen floors or unlined
crawlspaces. In these instances, a case-by-case determination must be made to determine whether
crawlspace air samples should be collected to evaluate the potential for human exposures.
(g) Indoor air samples from buildings. Indoor air samples are collected to characterize the nature
and extent of air contamination within on- or off-site buildings and to evaluate current human exposure
to volatile chemicals.
1. The considerations in selecting which buildings to sample indoor air should be similar to
those for sub-slab vapor sampling set forth in subdivision (f) above.
2. A building questionnaire and product inventory must be completed during the sampling
event to identify preferential pathways, building features, products containing volatile chemicals, etc.
that may affect the interpretation of the sampling results.
3. Indoor air samples are usually collected concurrently with sub-slab soil vapor samples,
and outdoor air samples, except when:
4. Indoor air sampling should also be considered for buildings where previous sub-slab
vapor samples identified elevated concentrations of contaminants; however no indoor air samples were
collected. This indoor sampling event should also include the collection of another concurrent sub-slab
vapor sample.
5. Indoor air samples, when necessary, should be collected from the following locations:
ii. the building basement at a height approximately three feet above the floor to
represent breathing zones, in the following areas:
iii. for a commercial setting, from multiple tenant spaces (where there is not a common
basement) at a height approximately three feet above the floor.
6. Indoor air samples should always be collected simultaneously with an outdoor air sample
(see subdivision (h) below) and with sub-slab vapor samples, where possible.
7. Based on the results of the indoor air samples from the areas described in paragraph 2.
above, DER may require additional sampling.
(h) Outdoor air samples. Samples of the outdoor (ambient) air are collected from the immediate
vicinity of any indoor air sampling to characterize ambient air conditions.
1. These samples must be collected simultaneously with indoor air samples, whenever
indoor sampling is undertaken and may be collected at DER=s request concurrently with subsurface
vapor samples.
iii. away from obvious sources of volatile chemicals (e.g., automobiles, lawn mowers,
oil storage tanks, gasoline stations, industrial facilities, etc);
Final DER-10 Page 85 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
iv. at a height approximately three feet above the ground, so as to represent breathing
zones; and
v. for buildings with HVAC systems that draw outdoor air into the building, an
outdoor air sample collected near the outdoor air intake may be appropriate.
3. With DER concurrence, one outdoor sample may be used for multiple buildings in the
same vicinity when concurrent indoor air and sub-slab vapor sampling of the buildings is performed.
(i) For guidance on completing an investigation to determine whether actions are needed to
address exposures related to soil vapor intrusion, New York State’s most recent SVI guidance and
associated updates should be used. For example, relative to recommended sampling protocols, quality
assurance/quality control of sampling, analytical methods and the use of field laboratories/mobile gas
chromatographs, as well as updates to the sampling requirements detailed above, the most recent
NYSDOH guidance should be used.
3.7 Groundwater
(a) At a minimum, each SC will require three cased overburden groundwater monitoring points
to determine groundwater flow direction and quality. These wells are to be located, screened, developed
and sampled in accordance with the approved work plan.
i. the contaminant concentrations found in all groundwater samples are below the
applicable groundwater SCGs, no further investigation is necessary for groundwater; or
2. When the contaminant concentrations found in any groundwater sample(s) exceed the
applicable SCGs as set forth in subparagraph 1.ii above:
ii. this sampling should consider at least one additional sample round, taking into
account the seasonal variability (wet or rapid snow melt versus dry) of the site area; and
iii. an additional monitoring well or wells near the upgradient property line may be
considered to evaluate a possible off-site source of the contamination.
i. delineate the nature and extent of any contaminant plume in the overburden and/or
bedrock aquifers (LNAPL, DNAPL and dissolved) on an areal and vertical basis;
iii. consider the physical and chemical properties of the contaminants of concern;
iv. determine whether the contaminant plume is expanding, contracting or stable; and
2. Groundwater RIs must also comply with the quality assurance and quality control
requirements described in Chapter 2.
(b) The scope of work for the remedial investigation should include work tasks to address the
applicable requirements of this subdivision.
1. Delineate the vertical and areal extent of groundwater contamination and the sources of
such groundwater contamination, without regard to property boundaries. This includes, but is not limited
to, the extent of both dense and light, non-aqueous-phase liquids (NAPLs). [Note: Volunteers in both the
VCP and BCP need only gather sufficient data to perform an off-site exposure assessment.]
2. The RI must determine which on-site sources contribute to that contamination and should
collect sufficient data to evaluate remedial measures to address that contamination.
i. at a minimum, a boring to the first aquitard identified for visual observation and
head space screening of soil samples, unless the contamination can be clearly associated solely with an
LNAPL;
iii. at least one round of synoptic static water levels, within the shortest time period
practicable, must be obtained to provide a site-specific indication of the groundwater flow direction;
5. Adequately characterize the impacted aquifer at the site. This may be accomplished by:
ii. where aquifer testing is conducted, it should include provisions for gathering the
following data:
i. documentation that the model type and application where appropriate, along with a
justification as to why the model was selected;
ii. specific details on the type of model, and the model application such as, but not
limited to, input parameters used and referenced, boundaries and limitations, calibration and matching
data and success, and application intent and/or strategy of the model;
iii. data presented graphically as groundwater gradient and contaminant plume maps. Electronic data
files, in accordance with section 1.15, used to present the data, including the base map and all figures
presenting investigation result, must be included with the report; and
iv. conclusions drawn from modeling should be verified with field data generated by
the RI.
i. a file search using available DEC, NYSDOH, county health departments and if
available, local records for all:
(1) monitoring wells and domestic wells potentially impacted by the site; and
(2) irrigation, industrial and/or public supply wells within one half mile of the site
boundary;
ii. if applicable, the type of well and the status of the well (active, inactive or properly
abandoned). Including if available, total depth, casing length, open bore hole or screened interval,
sample analysis (if available), copies of well records and or well logs on file with DEC, NYSDOH,
county health departments or appropriate county/local water authority, and any additional records
available in county or municipal records should be included; and
iii. a listing of all sources referenced in performing the well search, including agencies
that were unable to provide the information requested. If sufficient data cannot be obtained from existing
Final DER-10 Page 89 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
records to exclude the presence of potable, domestic or public supply wells within one-half mile of the
site boundary, a door-to-door survey or well survey mailed to property owners in the area should be
undertaken to provide the data. The limits of any survey may be expanded based on the findings of the
extent of groundwater contamination.
8. Sample any existing potable and supply wells identified in the well search which are
potentially impacted by the site.
9. Evaluate any surface water body that may be impacted by the contaminated groundwater
in accordance with section 3.8.
10. The investigation should evaluate any subsurface utilities, structures (with both basement
and slab on grade) and preferential pathways to identify additional sampling that may be warranted to
determine whether actions are needed to address exposures associated with soil vapor intrusion, as a
result of the groundwater contamination. Measurement of oxygen levels, lower explosive limits (LEL)
and the presence of organic vapors should be included in this evaluation, as appropriate.
11. Consideration should be given to the collection of groundwater samples at the top of the
water table as part of the evaluation of contaminant migration to soil vapor, to determine if the
groundwater in this zone is contaminated. Clean groundwater in this zone, above deeper contamination,
may eliminate the need for a SVI investigation.
13. The investigation of each area of concern should include at least one groundwater sample
from each monitoring point.
(c) The RI of groundwater should be conducted according to the technical requirements identified
by this subdivision.
i. in the expected down gradient flow direction of the area being evaluated and within
25 feet of the area of concern/source identified in paragraph 4 above. Groundwater flow direction
should be predicted based on:
(1) topographic relief, the location of surface water bodies, structural controls in
the bedrock or soils, location of pumping wells and subsurface conduits at or below the water table; or
(2) data from adjacent sites if groundwater flow direction at the adjacent site has
been determined pursuant to paragraph 3.7.2(b)4;
iii. should also consider site related conditions, including but not limited to:
i. at least one groundwater sample for each area of concern which is classified as an
underground injection control (UIC) unit as defined by the USEPA, including without limitation, a
seepage pit, septic system, dry well or other injection well sampled pursuant to paragraph 3.9(e)3;
ii. for sites with leaking underground storage tanks and tank fields:
(1) containing up to three tanks, at least one groundwater sample location down
gradient of the tanks;
(2) sites with more than three tanks, may require additional sample locations; and
(3) if a leaking tank is excavated, the groundwater sampling point should be
located within the excavation;
iii. pump islands and associated piping greater than 25 feet from the tank field should
be considered separate areas of concern and should require a separate groundwater sample location; and
iv. at least one groundwater sample for all other areas of concern, unless the area of
concern is within 25 feet and hydraulically upgradient of another groundwater sampling location.
Final DER-10 Page 91 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
7. Drilling logs and well construction logs must be prepared and maintained for all
monitoring locations.
8. Typically, a minimum of two rounds of groundwater samples are analyzed from each
monitoring well installed as part of a RI:
i. the first round of groundwater samples should be analyzed for all suspected site-
related contaminants;
ii. the second round of sampling may be modified to eliminate non-critical wells
and/or eliminate specific parameters based on the analytical results of the first round, with DER
approval; and
iii. where more than one round of sampling is needed, it is desirable to have sampling
events coincide with seasonal high and low water;
9. The results of the RI groundwater analyses should be evaluated in accordance with
subdivision 3.7.1(b).
(d) For contaminants that in their pure phase and at standard state conditions (20 degrees Celsius
to 25 degrees Celsius and one atmosphere pressure) have densities greater than water, NAPL will be
suspected to be present if the contaminant is detected in groundwater at concentrations equal to or
greater than one percent of the water solubility of the contaminant if groundwater contains only that
organic contaminant. If a mixture of such contaminants is present, then the effective water solubility of
the contaminant should be estimated for this determination.
(e) Hydraulic conductivity and flow velocities should be determined using field tests and
appropriate calculations.
(a) This guidance is intended for site-specific groundwater background evaluations for a SC, RI,
or other element of a remedial program.
2. Area-wide groundwater background studies, intended to be applied to more than one site,
may require an expanded level of effort to be determined after consultation with DER.
ii. metals which represent natural conditions in the groundwater at the site.
(b) If groundwater contamination is detected above applicable SCGs the approach outlined by
this subdivision may be used to demonstrate that all or part of the contamination is due to background
groundwater contamination.
ii. at the upgradient property boundary of the site provided no on-site areas of concern
are in the vicinity of, or extend beyond, the property boundary;
iii. such that the off-site groundwater impacting this well will migrate along a predicted
groundwater flow path that will intercept the area of concern; and
iv. outside the zone of influence of any nearby pumping wells that would prevent up
gradient groundwater from flowing onto the site.
(c) The remedial party must notify DER if it believes, pursuant to paragraph (b)5 above, that a
source of groundwater contamination is identified upgradient of the site. DER will evaluate the data and
determine if the groundwater contamination is attributable to background or if further investigation of an
upgradient source is warranted.
(a) The remedial party should determine in the SC if there is any evidence that a surface water
body or wetland is on or proximate to the site.
1. The following data should be collected to identify potentially proximate surface water or
wetlands:
ii. likely location where the contaminants of concern from the site would discharge
into a surface water body or wetland;
iii. flow direction and depth of any groundwater contamination plume(s) in relation to
such water body or wetland;
v. any known jurisdictional status and classification of the wetland (e.g., regulated by
the State or federal government);
vii. any additional information to support this evaluation which may be identified in
accordance with paragraph 3.3(b)2 and subdivision 3.10.1(b).
iii. discharges from the site have occurred (historic) or are occurring and are impacting
such surface water body or wetland by way of:
iv. historic disposal from the site to the water body or wetland has occurred; or
v. contaminated sediment, soil or surface water are present within the water body or
wetland, where the contamination may be attributable to a discharge or disposal per subparagraphs iii
and iv above.
3. Where there are known, suspected historical or on-going discharges to the surface water
body or wetland, determined pursuant to paragraph 2 above, the characterization should consider
evidence of impacts to a surface water body or wetland as follows:
i. stressed vegetation, sheens, seeps, discolored soil or sediment along the shoreline,
or on the bottom, or the surface, system hydraulics such as stream flux (the rate at which a stream is
gaining or losing water);
iv. applicable soil, sediment and/or surface water SCGs are exceeded within the water
body or wetland, where the contamination may be attributable to a discharge or disposal from the site as
per subparagraphs 2.iii and iv above.
4. Where ongoing discharges are identified an IRM should be considered if impacts can be
mitigated by immediate action.
(b) If there is evidence that discharges to the surface water body or wetland have occurred,
pursuant to subdivision (a) above, then further investigation of either or both media is required in a RI.
(a) Any surface water, wetlands or sediments which may have been impacted by contamination
emanating from the site are to be investigated by the RI consistent with this subsection. Wetlands to be
investigated include both regulated and unregulated wetlands.
i. account for tidal, seasonal or short-term flow, turbidity and water quality
fluctuations due to dry versus wet-weather flow;
3. Water and sediment analysis must include each constituent of concern disposed of at a
site with at least one sample set taken during critical, low-flow conditions. All sediment samples should
also be analyzed for total organic carbon.
(b) Surface water sampling. Surface water samples are required when there is evidence that
surface water has or may have been impacted by contamination emanating from the site. The RI of
surface water should be conducted according to this subdivision and the sampling, reporting and quality
assurance requirements of Chapter 2.
2. Surface water sample locations. Samples should be considered in the surface water body
Final DER-10 Page 96 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
adjacent to any of the areas identified in paragraphs 3.8.1(a)2 and 3.
(c) Sediment sampling. As part of the RI, sediments in proximate surface water bodies or
wetlands should be analyzed when there is reason to believe the sediments may have been impacted by
contamination emanating from the site. The RI of sediments should be conducted according to this
subdivision and the sampling, reporting and quality assurance requirements of Chapter 2.
1. Samples should be collected to meet the requirements of the appropriate fish and wildlife
resources impact analysis, set forth in section 3.10 or, if appropriate human health exposure assessments
to determine the nature and extent of the contamination and determine whether contaminants exceed
appropriate SCGs. Samples should be taken:
ii. to characterize sediment type, thickness of sediment layers and vertical extent of
sediment.
ii. adjacent to the border of the terrestrial portion of the site and the water body or
wetland
iii. at the first most likely location of major sediment deposition, which will vary
depending upon the type of water body from which the samples are collected. Samples collected from:
(1) lakes or ponds should be placed in an array moving away from the point
source or site border;
(2) non-tidal streams should be placed in major depositional areas adjacent to or
downstream of the site;
(3) tidal streams should be placed in major depositional areas immediately
upstream, adjacent and downstream of the site; and
(4) wetlands should be placed:
(A) in an array moving away from the point source or site border;
(B) along any areas of probable flow through the wetland; and
(C) at any identifiable point where water discharges from the wetland.
iv. from any wetland or floodplain which may receive sediment from adjacent or
upstream locations of potentially impacted sediment;
ii. in areas of deep sediment, borings should be advanced and samples collected at
regular intervals below the 24 inches identified in subparagraph i above;
iii. from distinct layers of sediments, thicker than six inches, which are identifiable by
color, particle size or other physical characteristics; and
iv. from any interval where free product, NAPL or grossly contaminated media, as
defined in paragraph 1.3(b)23, is identified.
4. Sediment analysis. In addition to the required chemical analyses, sediments will also be
analyzed for total organic carbon to allow for the development of appropriate SCGs.
(a) This guidance is intended for surface water or wetland sediment background evaluations for
either a SC, RI or other element of a remedial program.
2. Area-wide sediment background studies, which are intended to be applied to more than
one site, may require an expanded level of effort to be applicable. Such an expanded level of effort will
be determined after consultation with DEC.
(b) The remedial party may evaluate sediment background conditions at a site using the
approaches discussed in this subdivision. This evaluation is not intended solely to develop site-specific
cleanup objectives, but to assist in the characterization of site-related contamination.
Final DER-10 Page 98 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
1. The remedial party may use an existing DEC-approved background evaluation conducted
generally in accordance with paragraph 2 below, which:
ii. demonstrates that the sediment from the area of the background evaluation could
reasonably be expected to occur at or be transported to the sediment at, or proximate to, the remedial
site.
2. The remedial party may conduct a site-specific sediment background evaluation. This
will include
i. evaluating whether:
(1) the contaminant(s) were used, stored or disposed on or near areas of the site
proximate to the sediments in question, as documented pursuant to this guidance;
(2) there has been an impact by a discharge from the site to the sediments in
question, via groundwater, erosion of soil from AOCs, subsurface NAPL migration, storm sewers,
ditches or other methods of conveyance; and
(3) the distribution of the element, chemical or contaminant in the sediment
follows a concentration gradient indicative of disposal or a discharge;
(1) be collected from a depth or depths which conform to the same depths
sampled during the sediment investigation conducted during the site RI;
(2). be collected at locations upstream, up gradient or otherwise outside the
influence of the site and unaffected by current and/or historic site operations, as documented by the
records search;
(3) not be collected from or adjacent to source areas in the site study area,
including any of the following:
(A) areas where materials or wastes were loaded, handled, or stored;
(B) waste disposal areas;
(C) areas receiving runoff from areas identified in subclauses (A) or (B)
above, or adjacent contaminated sites;
(D) storm drain outfalls or ditches receiving runoff from the site or adjacent
contaminated sites;
(E) depositional areas within the influence of known site-related sources; or
(F) any other area of concern, as defined by section 1.8;
(4) not be collected from the following areas unless it can be demonstrated that
the contamination in the area is due to generally occurring pollution related to the urban or industrial
nature (anthropogenic) of the surrounding area. Samples from these locations should only be sampled in
the background evaluation if similar conditions exist within the site-related area of impacts:
(A) areas near parking lots, roads, or roadsides;
(B) areas near railroad tracks;
Final DER-10 Page 99 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
(C) areas adjacent to historic fill material; or
(D) storm drain outfalls or ditches receiving runoff not impacted by the site
or adjacent contaminated sites; and
iii. use of the same sampling and analytical methods as were used for other site
samples; and
3. If contaminant concentrations are found at any sampling location on the site exceeding
the average concentration found in the background samples, the RI should delineate the extent of the
contamination.
1. The remedial party should, after consulting with DER, submit a work plan outlining the
proposed methods and analyses for the additional sampling as well as the methods for any statistical
and/or chemical forensic evaluation of samples.
(a) This guidance is intended for site-specific surface water background evaluations for either a
SC, RI or other element of a remedial program.
2. Area-wide surface water background studies, intended to be applied to more than a one
site, may require an expanded level of effort to be determined after consultation with DEC.
(b) If a suspected contaminant is found in excess of the applicable SCGs in surface water on,
adjacent to or down-gradient of the site the collection of water samples may be considered, in
accordance with this subdivision, to evaluate background conditions in the water body.
2. Background surface water samples should be collected, preferably at the same time as the
other surface water samples. If this is not possible, the samples must be collected during a period of
similar turbidity conditions and flow regime as the original samples.
(c) If any RI surface water samples collected within the area that may be impacted by
contaminant migration from the site exceed the background samples, a further investigation of the
source of the impact should be undertaken.
3.9 Area Specific Requirements for Tanks, Storage Facilities, Water Treatment, Drainage
Structures and Other Systems
(a) Storage tanks and appurtenances. The investigation of bulk storage tanks and appurtenances;
should include, without limitation, all in use and out-of-service storage and associated piping, dispensers
and fill ports.
1. Aboveground tanks over unpaved soil or broken pavement in contact with the soil.
Sampling around tanks with shell or bottom in direct contact with soil now or in the past should meet all
the following criteria:
2. Aboveground tanks elevated over unpaved soil or broken pavement. Elevated tanks
where the shell or bottom is not in contact with ground:
ii. at least one soil sample should be taken below tanks which store, or may have
stored, contaminants that do not cause obvious soil discoloration such as VOCs:
(1) the samples should be collected in the area most likely to be contaminated,
including without limitation, valve or former leak or rupture areas; or
(2) if samples cannot be obtained from below the tank because soils are not
accessible to sampling equipment, the sample may be located within two feet of the tank.
3. Aboveground tanks over unbroken paved surfaces. Soil around aboveground tanks:
ii. within a paved containment area should be sampled at the drainage discharge point,
if one exists, pursuant to subdivision (d) below (Drainage Areas);
iii. soil sampling below the pavement should be conducted when the pavement has
deteriorated so as to allow potential contaminant contact with the soil, or if there is reason to believe that
pavement was not present over the life of the tank or former tanks; and
iv. instead of sampling soil beneath pavement, samples around the pad may be taken
pursuant to (b)1 below, subject to DER's review of documentation pursuant to subdivision 1.6(c)
specifying why boring through pavement was not considered practical (for example, concrete slabs with
berms, synthetic liners).
4. Underground storage tanks (USTs). USTs and distribution systems containing potential
contaminants should be evaluated to identify any past or present discharges. All USTs must be in
Final DER-10 Page 102 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
compliance with applicable regulations, upgraded as necessary or closed in accordance with the
requirements of section 5.5. All USTs not being closed should be evaluated as follows:
i. at least four soil samples should be collected from around each tank or group of
tanks as noted in clause (a)3.i.(2) above. The soil samples should be collected within two feet of the tank
with one sampling location located at each end, and additional sampling locations along the length of the
entire tank:
(1) if sampling within two feet of the tank is not possible due to the presence of
bedding gravel or there are safety considerations (e.g., danger of tank puncture) which have been
identified through field investigations or review of as built plans:
(A) soil samples should be taken as close as possible to the tank, with no
samples collected further than five feet from the tank or group of tanks; and
(B) a groundwater sample should be collected within five feet and down
gradient of the tank or group of tanks; or
(2) when, due to safety considerations, the distance between adjacent tanks
precludes locating soil samples between the tanks, a groundwater sample may be collected within five
feet and down gradient of the tanks, at the appropriate depth in lieu of the required soil samples between
the tanks. Where available, tank field wells may be sampled in lieu of a new well;
ii. the total number of sampling locations required per tank, or group of adjacent tanks,
located within the length identified in Table 3.9 for the total tank capacity;
iii. soil samples collected for analysis should be taken at zero to two feet below the
tank bottom unless the tank is within the saturated zone (see subparagraph iv below); and
iv. for underground storage tanks (USTs) within the saturated zone based on site-
specific water levels:
(1) if the contents of the UST being evaluated have ever had a density less than
water, a soil sample should be collected from one foot above to one foot below the current water table
surface. A groundwater sample should also be collected at the appropriate depth pursuant to section 3.7.
To verify tank contents for out-of-service tanks, one sample should be taken of any product or residue
remaining in the tank and analyzed using an appropriate fingerprinting or other analytical method; or
(2) if the contents of the UST being evaluated have ever had a density greater
than water, a soil sample should be collected from zero to two feet below the bottom of the tank. A
groundwater sample should also be collected at the appropriate depth pursuant to section 3.7. To verify
tank contents for out-of-service tanks, one sample should be taken of any product or residue remaining
in the tank and analyzed using an appropriate fingerprinting or other analytical method; and
i. a total piping length of 1to 15 feet, a minimum of one soil sample should be
collected:
(1) an additional soil sample should be collected for each additional 20 linear feet
of piping or portion thereof from 16 to 50 feet of piping length; and
(2) sample locations should be biased to include joints, dispensers and other
potential discharge areas;
ii. pipe runs within two feet of another pipe run may be considered a single pipe run.
Soil samples for multiple pipe lines should be collected midway between/among the lines or biased
toward any pipe for which evidence of a discharge exists. For pipes that are separated by a distance
greater than two feet vertically, soil samples should be collected below each pipe; or
iii. total piping lengths in excess of 50 feet, sampling frequency may be reduced
subject to DER's approval of documentation pursuant to section 1.6 specifying why the reduced number
was considered adequate.
i. over exposed soils which are associated with tanks, should be sampled at a
minimum rate of one sample per fill connection or valved discharge point; or
ii. over impervious cover, sampling should be conducted pursuant to paragraph (b)1
below.
(b) Storage and staging areas. The investigation for all storage and staging areas, dumpsters and
transformers, whether temporary or permanent, including exposed soil areas adjacent to aboveground
vessels on pads; tank loading/unloading areas on pads; dumpster staging areas; electrical transformers,
Final DER-10 Page 104 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
heat exchanger and other outdoor equipment and drum storage pads, should also satisfy the requirements
of this subdivision.
i. have a minimum of one sampling location per side adjacent to exposed soil for
sides:
ii. locate each sampling point immediately adjacent to the pad and biased toward the
suspected location of greatest contamination (e.g. joints);
iii. include soil samples beneath the pad, collected pursuant to subparagraph (b)2.ii
below, if:
(1) the pad shows evidence of deterioration that may allow contaminant contact
with the soil;
(2) the pad or its surface has been modified or repaved; or
(3) aerial photographs or site history indicate potential for previous discharges to
the soil beneath the pad; and
iv. sample bermed pads and pads surrounded by impermeable cover at any drainage
discharge point pursuant to subdivision (d) below (Drainage Systems).
2. Storage and staging areas over a permeable cover. Storage and staging areas with
evidence of discharges which are or were used for storage of contaminants:
i. should be sampled pursuant to subdivision (e) below (Discharge and waste disposal
systems);
ii. should be sampled at locations biased toward the suspected location of greatest
contamination based on low points, drainage patterns, discoloration, stressed vegetation, field instrument
measurements or other field indicators; and
(1) at least one surface sample, in accordance with subdivision 3.5.1(b), per 900
square feet of surface area to characterize soils below a storage or staging area up to 300 feet in
perimeter; and
(2) sample frequency may be reduced for larger areas subject to DER approval of
documentation pursuant to subdivision 1.6(c) specifying why the proposed sample frequency is
adequate.
(c) Surface impoundments. The investigation for all surface impoundments, including without
limitation, lagoons, fire ponds, waste ponds or waste pits, storm water detention basins, excavations,
natural depressions or diked areas, which are designed to hold an accumulation of liquid substances or
Final DER-10 Page 105 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
substances containing free liquids, should satisfy the requirements of this subdivision.
2. Sediment sample locations should be biased towards inflow/outflow areas, and areas
where sediments may be expected to accumulate.
3. Core samples should be taken for contaminant analysis and to fully characterize sediment
type, thickness of sediment layers and vertical extent of sediment.
4. Distinct layers of sediments thicker than six inches, as evidenced by color, particle size,
or other physical characteristics, should be sampled individually.
(d) Drainage systems. The SC or RI for all drainage systems should satisfy the sampling
requirements of this subdivision.
1. Floor drains and collection systems. If there is reason to believe contaminants were or
may have been discharged into the floor drain or collection system:
i the point of discharge for any floor drain or collection system should be sampled if
the system discharges were, or may have been, discharged to soil, groundwater or surface water;
ii. if the point of discharge is unknown, tracer tests (for example, dye or smoke)
should be conducted to determine the discharge point(s);
iv. sampling soil below floor drains or collection system laterals should be conducted
when corrosives (if plastic piping is or was used, organic solvents are considered corrosive) are or were
discharged to floor drains or the collection system or there has been a history of collection system
discharges, rupture or repairs. In such cases, representative soil sampling at known or suspected leak
areas is required for potential contaminants.
2. Roof leader discharge. Soil at each roof leader discharge point should be sampled if
storage units or process operations using contaminants of concern vent, or may have vented, to the roof.
3. Swales and culverts. Sampling should be conducted when the swale or culvert receives or
received runoff from other contaminated areas of concern:
ii. if flow could have scoured sediments from the receiving structure, sampling should
be conducted at on-site down gradient structures laden with sediments.
4. Storm sewer and spill containment collection systems. Sampling should be conducted
when the collection system is or was the runoff/spill discharge point from other contaminated areas of
concern:
i. sediment sampling should be conducted at the manhole, catch basin, sump, or other
structure where contaminated runoff or discharges enter the drainage system;
ii. sampling should be conducted in the soils around catch basins, manholes, sumps or
other structures which contain or may have contained contaminants, and are not hydraulically sound
(that is, water percolates through the floor and walls), through the use of adjacent soil borings:
(1) a single boring located within two feet of the downstream side of the structure
should be sampled at a depth corresponding to the bottom of the structure; and
(2) if highly permeable soils are encountered and VOC sampling is required,
sample at the next lower permeability soil horizon or zero to six inches above the saturated zone, or at
9.5 to 10 feet, whichever is encountered first; and
iii. groundwater discharging from storm sewer systems which contain dry weather flow
(that is, five days following the most recent rainfall) should be sampled at the discharge point and
analyzed for potential contaminants discharged or potentially discharged into the system.
5. Boiler and compressor discharges. For all boiler and compressor discharges if there is
reason to believe that a potential contaminant discharge has occurred, sampling should be conducted
pursuant to subdivision (e) below.
(e) Discharge and waste disposal systems. The SC or RI for all discharge and waste disposal
systems and areas should satisfy the sampling requirements of this subdivision.
1. Discharge areas and areas of discolored soil or stressed vegetation. Where specific
requirements are not otherwise provided in this section each distinct area should be evaluated
independently as an area of concern:
ii. sample frequency should be at least 1 sample for every 900 square feet for areas up
to 300 feet in perimeter; and
iii. sample frequency may be reduced for larger areas, subject to DER's review of
documentation pursuant to subdivision 1.6 (c) specifying why the reduced sample frequency was
considered adequate.
(1) two samples, one aqueous and one sludge sample, should be collected from
within the tank etc, for analysis unless documentation acceptable to DER pursuant to subdivision 1.6(c)
is provided in the SCR (section 3.13) specifying why such sampling was not considered necessary to
confirm that only sanitary waste was discharged to the system during the entire life of the system; and
(2) documentation, based upon diligent inquiry, should be provided to support
that only sanitary waste was ever discharged to the system and that no present or former floor drains,
sinks or other units in process areas were ever connected to the system;
(1) soil borings and/or test pitting should be completed as specified below for on-
site disposal fields unless documentation acceptable to DER is provided as to why soil borings were not
considered necessary to confirm that only sanitary waste was discharged to the system pursuant to
subparagraph (e)3.i above;
(2) at least one boring or test pit per 500 square feet of field area should be
completed, with a minimum of four borings per field;
(3) borings should be located within two feet of the edge of the bed area in active
fields but should be angled so that samples are taken below the infiltrative surface and directly below
laterals within abandoned fields;
(4) borings should be located to include the first five feet of the infiltrative
surface and should be spaced so that samples are representative of the entire disposal field; and
(5) soil samples should be taken at a depth corresponding to zero to six inches
below the bottom of the infiltrative surface.
(1) sampling should be conducted in accordance with clauses (2) through (5)
below, unless documentation acceptable to DER, pursuant to subdivision 1.6(c), is provided in the SCR
specifying why sampling was not considered necessary (e.g., to confirm that only sanitary waste or
storm water was discharged to the system pursuant to subparagraph (e)3.i above);
(2) one representative sample of sludge/sediment in each pit should be obtained
for laboratory analysis;
(3) a soil boring should be placed within the well, pit or pool:
(A) the soil should be cored and inspected for evidence of discharge and
samples collected in accordance with paragraphs 3.2.1(c)1 and 2; or
(B) if not possible to core within the suspected structure, the boring should
be placed within two feet of the downgradient side of the pit and should extend to a minimum of two
feet below the pit bottom;
(4) for structures with perforated sidewalls, perforated rings, brick, block or stone
construction, a boring should be placed immediately adjacent to the outside of the structure. If no other
Final DER-10 Page 108 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
field indicators (e.g., staining) identify a vertical zone to sample, a sample should be collected at the
level of any sediment observed inside the structure;
(5) samples obtained for VOC analysis should be collected as follows:
(A) each core should be field screened with a properly calibrated
photoionization detector or flame ionization detector (PID/FID) or other suitable instrument;
(B) if field measurement readings are detected above background, coring
should be extended until background readings are achieved or groundwater or bedrock is encountered;
and
(C) an undisturbed sample from the two-foot interval registering the highest
field measurement reading should be collected and analyzed for VOCs;
(6) if the pit bottom is within two feet of the saturated zone or bedrock, a
groundwater sample will be obtained within the pit or, if not possible, within two feet of the suspected
downgradient side of the pit; and
(7) at a minimum, the laboratory analysis should target the contaminants
suspected to have been discharged to the seepage pit.
3.10.1 Fish and Wildlife Resources Impact Analysis Part 1: Resource Characterization
(a) The purpose of the FWRIA Part 1 is to identify actual or potential impacts to fish and wildlife
resources from site contaminants of ecological concern. Refer to the document entitled DFW&MR Fish
and Wildlife Impact Analysis for Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites (1994) for additional guidance and
detail on how to conduct a FWRIA.
(b) When paragraphs 1 through 4 below apply at a site, it is assumed no FWRIA is needed.
1. The remediation is directed toward a specific discharge or spill event that does not
adversely impact fish and wildlife resources.
2. The AOCs at the site consist solely of an underground storage tank(s) or an underground
tank system, with no significant impact on surrounding groundwater or surface water.
3. The site is a point source of contamination to the groundwater (i.e. dry cleaner or gas
station) which will be prevented from discharging to surface water, and there is no widespread soil
contamination or habitat of an endangered, threatened or special concern species present.
4. There are no ecological resources present on or in the vicinity of the site, determined
pursuant to paragraph (c)1 below (e.g. an urban site which is not proximate to a surface water body,
wetland or other ecologically significant area).
(c) A resource characterization consists of the five steps detailed below and should be conducted
by an individual with the qualifications set forth at subparagraph 1.5(a)3.ii in accordance with the RI
work plan. These steps will also satisfy the ecological portion of the qualitative exposure assessment for
the BCP, while for CERCLA and NPL sites, a USEPA Ecological Risk Assessment may also be
required.
i. a topographic map showing any fish and wildlife resources within one-half mile of
the site including, but not limited to:
ii. a general cover type map for the area within one-half mile of the site showing any:
2. Describe the resources on the site and within one-quarter mile of the site. Much of the
information required for the description of resources may be based upon existing knowledge of the site
and a search of DEC records or other sources. Field verification may be needed if the site is large or
contains extensive resources. If resources that may be affected by site-related contaminants exist farther
than one-half mile from the site, this information should also be provided. The description of the
resources should include:
ii. DEC freshwater wetlands and stream classifications, and tidal wetland types;
iii. typical fish and wildlife species to be expected for each cover type and endangered,
threatened, rare species or species of special concern;
iv. observations of stress including leachate or other seeps, exposed waste, absence of
biota and dead or dying vegetation;
v. recorded fish kills or other instances of wildlife mortality associated with the site;
vii. a qualitative assessment of the general ability of the area to support fish and wildlife
or act as corridors for fish and wildlife movement; and
3. Identify contaminant migration pathways and any fish and wildlife exposure pathways.
Fish and wildlife exposure pathways are considered:
i. complete pathways in all instances where contaminants are potentially available for
exposure to fish and wildlife resources regardless of the total extent of the contaminant exposure area or
number of individuals exposed. Where complete pathways are identified:
(1) they should be included in the conceptual site model described in subdivision
3.2.2 (a); and
(2) any site or near-site features that could act as exposure pathways on or off the
site, such as drainage ditches, lagoons, outfalls and seeps, should be included on the site maps; or
i. those contaminants that have been identified by the investigation as having been
discharged or disposed at a site, which have been determined to exist in areas of identified fish and
wildlife resources at concentrations that are known to:
(1) comparing site contaminants to SCGs for the protection of biota in each
medium of concern (surface water, sediments, soil or biota); or
(2) if such SCGs do not exist, criteria should be derived using methods
established in SCGs (e.g., 6 NYCRR Part 706 for surface water) and/or by a toxicity assessment. A
toxicity assessment should:
(A) be conducted using applicable state or federal guidance;
(B) be based on available scientific literature; and
(C) compare levels of site contaminants to the reference toxicity values
developed; and
iii. are considered to be present at a site when the contaminant concentrations exceed
the applicable SCGs or the developed reference toxicity values, identified by subparagraph ii above.
5. Based upon the resources and pathways identified and the toxicity of the contaminants of
ecological concern, the FWRIA Part 1 should draw conclusions regarding the actual or potential adverse
impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
1. Based on the information provided by the FWRIA Part 1data submission, DEC will:
i. determine whether the fish and wildlife resources identified constitute an important
component of the environment at or in the vicinity of the site; and
2. For sites where further evaluation or definition of ecological impact is necessary, DEC
will identify the need for a FWRIA Part 2 ecological impact assessment, and request a work plan which
includes provisions for gathering the necessary data identified in subsection 3.10.2 to define and
evaluate the adverse impacts to the resources.
3.10.2 Fish and Wildlife Resources Impact Analysis Part 2: Ecological Impact Assessment
(a) The remedial party should complete a FWRIA resource characterization (Part 1) according to
subsection 3.10.1 before proceeding with this section. If the results of the resource characterization
indicate that further assessment is needed, an ecological impact assessment (Part 2) is required to further
define and evaluate the adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
(b) The ecological impact assessment should follow applicable State and federal guidance or
scientific literature and should be conducted pursuant to a DEC-approved work plan by a person with
the qualifications set forth at subparagraph 1.5(a)3.ii.
(c) Additional data collection needed to complete the ecological impact assessment should be
identified in a work plan prepared by the remedial party. As appropriate for the contaminated media and
contaminants of ecological concern identified by the FWRIA resource characterization, the work plan
should detail the collection of additional data as set forth in this subdivision.
(d) Using the results of paragraphs (c)1 through 6 above, the remedial party should conduct a
detailed toxicity assessment incorporating information from subsection 3.10.1 and describe the actual or
Final DER-10 Page 112 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
potential adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources from the site.
1. The results of the FWRIA should be reported as a separate section of the remedial
investigation report.
ii. develop appropriate ecologically based, site-specific cleanup objectives for site
contaminants of ecological concern; and
iii. recommend measures for incorporation into the remedy selection report to eliminate
or mitigate actual and potential adverse impacts.
(a) If historic fill material (HFM) is identified at a site during development of the RI work plan or
in the course of the soil investigation being undertaken pursuant to subsection 3.5.2, the additional steps
outlined in this section may be applicable to characterize the HFM.
(b) The RI of HFM is intended to identify the location and extent of the historic fill on and around
the site, as well as to characterize the nature of the fill material, including a determination of the
presence of any contaminated non-HFM and any free product and/or NAPLs as defined in section 1.3.
1. The RI of HFM should be conducted to identify the location, vertical limits, and physical
characteristics of the HFM using borings, test pits, trenches and/or appropriate geophysical techniques.
The investigation should include:
i. the logging and mapping of all contaminated fill material encountered, including
both historic and non-historic fill;
ii. at least four borings or test pits per acre of HFM with a minimum of four borings or
test pits. The location of the borings or test pits should be representative of the areal extent of the fill and
should be advanced through the fill material to native soil, meadow mat or bedrock so that the vertical
limit of the fill material is established; and
iii. if the contaminated fill material extends below the water table, borings or test pits
should extend below the water table as necessary to establish the vertical limit of the fill material;
2. The RI of HFM should identify the horizontal boundaries of the contaminated fill
material area as follows:
i. a minimum of four borings or test pits should be installed in non-fill areas spaced
equidistantly around the perimeter of the contaminated fill material area;
ii. if fill material is known to be ubiquitous in the vicinity of the site, aerial photos or
other applicable documentation may be submitted in lieu of perimeter borings or test pits to verify that
historic fill is site-wide; and
Final DER-10 Page 113 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
iii. delineation of HFM is not required beyond the property boundary; however this
should not be construed to limit the necessary delineation of any off-site contamination due to migration
from the site.
ii. the actual number and location of samples collected should be based on the
variability of fill types and contaminant ranges present in a historic fill area and selected in accordance
with section 3.2; and
iii. at least one sample for laboratory analysis should be collected from each boring and
analyzed as follows:
(1) analysis of rubble, ash, cinders and dredge spoils should be conducted for:
(A) total petroleum hydrocarbons;
(B) priority pollutant metals in all samples;
(C) carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(per EPA Priority Pollutant List); and
(D) PCBs on 25 percent of the samples, biased to samples having the highest
total petroleum hydrocarbon levels;
(2) field screening for VOCs should be conducted during the installation of all
exploratory borings and test pits with volatile organic laboratory analysis performed on all samples with
elevated field instrument measurements (greater than five times background);
(3) any other fill material should be analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbon in
all samples, and Priority Pollutant plus 40 analysis or EPA Target Compound List/Target Analyte List
analysis should be conducted for 25 percent of all samples;
(4) in addition to the contaminant analysis required in clauses (b)3.iii.(1) and (2)
above, samples should also be analyzed for any other suspected contaminants based on diligent inquiry
of the origin of the fill material and site history; and
(5) if more than one type of HFM is encountered in any boring or test pit, one
sample is required for each type of fill material encountered. For example, if ash and demolition debris
are encountered in the same boring, one sample of each is required from that boring.
5. If the remedial party encounters materials that do not meet the definition of HFM because
it includes material which meets the definition of a source in paragraph 1.3(b)70, drums or other
containerized waste, the remediation of each such area should be conducted as(a) separate area(s) of
concern.
(a) If no areas of concern are identified which require characterization or RI, the remedial party is
to prepare a records search report which meets the requirements of this subdivision.
i. present and discuss all of the information identified, evaluated or collected pursuant
to subparagraph 3.1(a)1.i;
ii. be presented in a format that corresponds to the outline of Appendix 3A; and
(1) scaled site plans detailing lot and block numbers, property and leasehold
boundaries, construction or destruction of buildings, areas where fill or cover material has been brought
on-site, paved and unpaved areas, vegetated and unvegetated areas, all areas of concern and active and
inactive wells; and
(2) scaled historical site plans and facility as-built construction drawings, if
available;
(3) a copy of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle that includes the site and an area of at least a one-mile radius around the site. This map
should be the most recent USGS revision and should clearly note the facility location and property
boundaries. When a portion of the USGS quadrangle is used, the scale, north arrow, contour interval,
longitude and latitude and the name and date of the USGS quadrangle must be noted on the map; and
(4) a summary of the data and information evaluated in all phases of the work, as
set forth in Appendix 3A, should be presented by area of concern.
2. For each area of concern identified at the site, which has not been remediated under DER
oversight, the records search report should contain a recommendation that either:
i. one or more contaminants have been identified at the area of concern or are
suspected of being present, the area of concern has not been previously remediated under DER oversight
indicating additional investigation or remediation is required; or
(b) If areas of concern are identified which require further characterization or a RI, a separate
records search report need not be prepared. The information obtained in the records search, should be
incorporated into the SCR described in section 3.13 or the RI report described in section 3.14.
(c) Upon written request of the remedial party DER will determine the extent to which prior
submissions or completions may satisfy the specific items required for the records search report. If DER
Final DER-10 Page 115 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
approves any such prior work, that work may be included as part of the records search report.
(d) Electronic submissions. The remedial party is to provide the records search report, prepared in
accordance with section 1.15, as a stand-alone submission unless otherwise approved in a work plan.
(a) The site characterization report (SCR) should be prepared in accordance with this subdivision,
where the SC concludes that a RI is not required for the site, or the remedial party will not proceed with
the RI of the site. The SCR should present and discuss all of the information identified or collected
pursuant to subsections 3.2.1, 3.4,3.5.1, 3.6, 3.7.1 and 3.8.1.
(b) A full SCR is not required if the remedial party or DER determines that a RI is necessary, in
accordance with subdivision 3.1(b), or if one is planned by the remedial party.
1. When the remedial party elects to transition the SC to a RI the information identified by:
ii. the discussion in subdivision (d) below should be included in the remedial
investigation report.
ii. a scope of work for the RI, consistent with subdivision 3.1(c), which will be the
basis for a development of the RI work plan pursuant to section 3.3 may be included in the summary.
(c) Electronic data summary (EDS). The SCR is not to include, either as an appendix or an
attachment, any of the information identified in paragraphs 1 through 5 below. The remedial party is to
provide this information, in accordance with section 1.15, as a stand-alone data submission unless
otherwise approved. The EDS is to include the information identified by this subdivision. An EDS will
be included in accordance with this guidance for all other report or document submissions which include
similar data.
3. Required laboratory data deliverables pursuant to sections 2.2 and 2.3 and Appendix 2B;
4. Well development logs and, if applicable, well as-built specifications. The following
information, where applicable, should be reported for each monitoring well sampled for each
groundwater sampling event:
iii. before sampling, the depth from the top of the casing to the water prior to sampling;
and
5. All supporting information typically provided in the records search report detailed in
section 3.12, if this report is combined with the SCR. If a separate records search report was provided
this should not be included in the SC report but remain a standalone document, summarized in the SC
report.
2. Unless the remedial program is directed at a specific discharge event, rather than a
particular area of concern or any underground tank or underground tank system, a physical setting
section should include descriptions of the:
ii. use of, distance to, flow direction, classification of and names of surface water
bodies within one-half mile of the site with emphasis upon water bodies topographically or hydraulically
down gradient of the site that may receive site discharges or runoff; and
iii. presence of any public/private potable water, irrigation or process water wells
within one-half mile.
3. A technical overview which should present a general profile of the SC results. The
following items should be discussed in the technical overview:
ii. a summary of the general nature of contamination on the site to the extent
investigated by the SC including, without limitation, the numbers of areas of concern requiring further
investigation and/or remediation; and
iii. any significant events or seasonal variation which may have influenced sampling
procedures or analytical results.
i. any changes in sampling protocols, locations, etc. due to field conditions, from that
set forth in the work plan;
(e) The SCR should present the data and information gathered by the characterization scope of
work in accordance with this subdivision.
2. A table summarizing all sampling results, including sample location, media, sample
depth, field and laboratory identification numbers, analytical results and comparison to applicable SCGs,
for the media in question, organized by area of concern:
ii. samples with detection limit or minimum reporting limits (MDLs) exceeding the
applicable remediation standard should be identified and an explanation provided in the table key;
iii. soils/solids sample results should be reported in milligrams per kilogram on a dry-
weight basis, and aqueous sample results should be reported in micrograms per liter;
iv. all groundwater data for the same aquifer zone should be located in the same
section of the table; and
3. Stratigraphic logs, which include soil/rock physical characteristics and field instrument
readings detected during drilling for each soil boring, test pit and monitoring well. If sediment sampling
was conducted, logs which describe grain size, color, cohesion, odor and stratigraphy, if evident, should
be included.
4. Stratigraphic cross sections of the site using information from monitoring wells, test pits
and borings, as well as public/private drinking water well information, if available.
6. Any other data and information relevant to the nature and extent of contamination
obtained pursuant to subsections 3.2.1, 3.5.1, 3.7.1 and 3.8.1.
(f) The SCR should include legible maps and diagrams in accordance with this subdivision.
1. Site and area of concern base maps pursuant to subparagraph 3.12(a)1.iii should be scaled
at one inch to 200 feet or less (sample location maps may be keyed to and superimposed on base maps)
and consistent with the specifications for maps and diagrams in accordance with this subdivision.
iv. if more than one map is submitted in paragraph(d)1 above, the maps should be
presented as overlays, keyed to the base map with sample locations superimposed on the site or area of
concern map. Alternatively, individual maps may be submitted which have a common coordinate system
and common scale, provided each map details the features of the base map.
3. If applicable, a map of the distribution of surface water, sediment, structure and airborne
contaminants, including sample location numbers and contaminant concentrations.
4. Photos may be submitted to document the location of all soil and sediment sample
locations.
(g) Electronic submissions. All required reports and/or documentation identified by this section
must be provided in an electronic format in accordance with section 1.15.
(a) The remedial investigation report (RIR) incorporates the information collected by the
investigations conducted pursuant to sections 3.1 through 3.11 by all approved RI work plans, addenda
or supplements. Where the RI was conducted in several phases, the RIR is to be a comprehensive report
of all data collected during the RI and the conclusions drawn from that data. The RIR is to provide the
information identified by this subdivision and should use available RIR template(s) provided on DEC’s
website identified in the table of contents, as directed by the DER project manager.
5. Identify actual or potential adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources and to other
environmental resources (mining, recreational etc.).
3. RI work plan.
4. Copies of any laboratory data sheets and the required laboratory data deliverable
documentation pursuant to sections 2.2 and 2.3 and Appendix 2B.
(c) The RIR should build upon the information obtained by the SC (if one was performed for the
site) and report specifically on the items identified by this subdivision as well as any site-specific data
gathered pursuant to the RI work plan.
1. All of the relevant information obtained pursuant to paragraphs 3.3(b)1 and 2 should be
reported.
2. Provide a technical overview and findings along with a description of the work
completed under the approved RI work plan and the results of that completed work. The technical
overview and findings should include:
ii. a summary of the overall nature and extent of contamination using the state
standards, criteria, and guidance identified in subdivision 3.2.2(e). for comparison;
iv. any significant events, observations or seasonal variation which may have
influenced sampling procedures or analytical results.
3. SCGs which pertain to the site location and site contaminants as well as potential
remedial action objectives must be identified and listed in the RIR. The RI should determine the extent
to which the unrestricted use SCGs have been exceeded or contravened. In addition, the remedial party
may evaluate the extent to which the use-base SCGs under consideration for the site have been exceeded
or contravened.
4. All sampling results which exceed unrestricted soil SCGs, the groundwater standards or
other applicable unrestricted SCGs should be summarized in tables (organized by areas of concern)
which include sample location, media sampled, sample depth, field/laboratory identification numbers,
analytical results and the applicable unrestricted SCG for comparison. The results of any QA/QC
samples analyzed should also be included. Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates (North
American Datum [NAD] 83) should be identified for each sample location; appropriate GPS accuracy is
Final DER-10 Page 121 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
acceptable.
5. Stratigraphic logs which include soil/rock physical descriptions, well installation details,
well development data including volumes purged, and field instrument readings detected during drilling
for each soil boring, test pit and monitoring well. This data, where available, for any public/private
drinking water wells in the area of groundwater impact should also be included.
7. Site and area of concern base maps scaled at one inch to 200 feet or less (sample location
maps may be keyed to and superimposed on base maps) and consistent with the specifications for maps
and diagrams included in subdivision 3.13(f).
8. Sample location maps, appropriate to the area of the site and consistently used, with the
sample points located by a surveyor or by GPS to include all groundwater, soil, sediments and other
sample locations with sample depth and contaminant concentrations indicated on the map, if possible.
9. Groundwater elevation contour maps with flow direction specified for each set of static
water level measurements for each aquifer where monitoring wells/piezometers were installed for flow
direction. Groundwater elevation, for each monitoring well/piezometer, must be to the nearest hundredth
(0.01) foot relative to a permanent, on-site datum.
10. Top of bedrock contour or low-permeability unit (e.g., aquitard, clay or aquiclude) map if
bedrock or the unit was encountered in a sufficient number of borings to prepare a map.
11. At a minimum, site maps should show groundwater contaminant concentrations for each
sampling round. Isopleth maps for groundwater contaminant concentrations for each round of sampling
and isopleth maps for soil sample results should also be provided.
12. Maps depicting the areal and vertical (thickness) extent of any NAPL zones in
groundwater or soil.
13. If completed during the investigation, results of any treatability, bench scale or pilot
studies or other data collected to support remedy selection. This would include documentation
acceptable to DER indicating that a groundwater model used to evaluate potential groundwater remedies
was appropriate. The study and supporting documentation should be provided as part of the EDS
identified in subdivision (b) above or as a stand-alone document, not as an appendix to the RIR.
15. A section of the RI should present the results of the Fish and Wildlife Resources Impact
Analysis documenting the results of the Resource Characterization and Ecological Impact Assessment or
fish and wildlife exposure assessment consistent with section 3.10, if required.
16. Any other pertinent data obtained from implementing the work plan, including any IRMs
done prior to or during the RI.
i. exposure pathways, which is how an individual may come into contact with a
contaminant. The five elements of an exposure pathway are the:
ii. the elements of an exposure pathway identified in subparagraph i above, are based
on past, present or future events; and
iii. the potentially exposed receptors and how any unacceptable exposures may be
eliminated are determined from an assessment of the primary use of the area (e.g., residential, industrial,
or recreational), actual and potential use of ground and surface waters that are impacted or threatened,
and how any potential routes of exposure may be eliminated. The current, proposed or reasonably
anticipated future use of the area should be used in this assessment.
18. A quantitative risk assessment consistent with CERCLA may be requested by DER,
based upon the exposure assessment, described in paragraph 17 above, unless the remedial program is
undertaken by volunteer in the BCP.
19. Conclusions and recommendations which summarize the extent of the areas of concern,
identifies any unacceptable exposure pathways, and recommends any future work (e.g., none, additional
investigation, or an evaluation of remedial alternatives). This should include an updated conceptual
model of the site and may also include remedial action objectives selected from those provided on the
DEC website identified in the table of contents.
20. Electronic submissions. All required reports and/or documentation identified by this section must
be provided in an electronic format in accordance with section 1.15.
(a) The purpose of remedy selection is to identify, evaluate and select a remedy or alternative
remedies to address the contamination identified by the RI of the site or an operable unit of a site.
(b) Remedial goals. The statutory or regulatory remedial action goals for remedial actions
undertaken pursuant to this guidance are set forth in the applicable regulations identified in section 1.2.
(c) Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs). RAOs are medium or operable unit-specific objectives
for the protection of public health and the environment and are developed based on contaminant-specific
SCGs to address contamination identified at a site. Where applicable, the generic RAOs identified on the
DEC website identified in the table of contents are to be used for the various media.
(d) Baseline considerations. The remedial party will evaluate the following baseline
considerations, unless they are not applicable to the site conditions, when developing alternatives in
accordance with section 4.3. These baseline considerations are applicable without regard to the use of
the site.
iv. treatment of source at the point of exposure - Treatment of the exposure resulting
from sources of contamination at the point of exposure, including but not limited to, wellhead treatment
or the management of volatile contamination within buildings, may be considered as a last resort.
3. Bulk storage tanks and containment vessels. Where petroleum or chemical storage tanks,
subject to the applicable DEC bulk storage regulations, are discovered on site during the course of the
remedial program or any product or contaminant is found to be stored on the site in containment vessels
other than storage tanks (such as drums, transformers, sumps and pits), the remedy for the site will
include provision to:
i. all known tanks on the site, which are under the ownership or control of the
remedial party, shall be registered in accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements, as follows;
ii. all such known tanks that are out of service or out of compliance and which are
under the ownership or control of the remedial party, shall be closed in accordance with the applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements, as follows:
iii. where such tanks or vessels identified in paragraph ii above are out of service or out
of compliance and they contain any product or contaminants, such product or contaminants shall be
removed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable state and federal requirements:
4. Groundwater protection and control measures. All remedial programs will consider the
protection of groundwater in the development and evaluation of remedial alternatives and will consider
DEC guidance including, any groundwater remediation strategy issued pursuant to ECL 15-3109. While
the current use of groundwater as drinking water may be considered, the absence of such use shall not
exclude the need for remediation Where the RI has identified groundwater contamination as set forth
below, the remedial program must consider measures to address:
i. any source of on-site groundwater contamination which was identified at the site. In
doing so the remedy selection must consider:
ii. on-site groundwater contamination which may be attributed to both an on-site and
an off-site source, where there is off-site migration of groundwater contamination. In doing so the
remedy selection must:
(1) identify a remedy for the site which includes removal, containment or
treatment of the on-site sources contributing to the groundwater contamination, as set forth in paragraph
2 above; and
(2) develop and evaluate remedial alternatives which eliminate or mitigate on-site
environmental impacts or human exposures, to the extent feasible, resulting from any off-site
contamination entering the site.
(e) Other considerations for soil contamination. The remedial party will address the
considerations and media identified by this subdivision, where applicable to the site conditions identified
by the RI, in each of the alternatives developed for evaluation and analysis in accordance with section
4.3. These considerations, where applicable, will be considered without regard to the use of the site.
1. Soil vapor and soil vapor intrusion. Where soil vapor contamination is identified by
the RI, the development of remedial alternatives shall address, as set forth at 6 NYCRR 375-6.7(a) the
contamination in this environmental medium, as well as, the migration of contaminants in soil and
groundwater at levels which have the potential to impact the indoor air of buildings or areas where
buildings are likely to be constructed, resulting in actual or potential human exposures. The remedy
selection process is to consider whether the remaining contamination will or may have the potential to
impact soil vapor or result in the need to take actions to address exposures related to soil vapor intrusion,
the site-specific remedy will evaluate measures in addition to addressing the source pursuant to
subdivision (d) above, to address soil vapor intrusion through:
ii. where the pathways identified in paragraph 1 above are a concern, the remedy must
include provisions to protect the occupants of the adjacent residential properties from exposure through
such pathways. Such provisions are based upon site-specific conditions, especially those conditions
proximate to the residential properties; and may include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) requiring the exposed surface soils, or any cover for exposed surface soils,
meet residential soil SCGs across the site or in an appropriate buffer zone(s) proximate to the residential
properties;
(2) additional remedial actions to address soil contamination in the soils which
are subject to transportation. Such additional actions may be taken site-wide or in buffer zones (areally
or vertically);
(3) requiring any exposed surface soil at the site to be vegetated or otherwise
stabilized to control erosion; and/or
(4) exposure control measures, including but not limited to the application of a
storm water pollution prevention plan consistent with the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion
and Sediment Control (dated 1997), or updated version.
3. Surface water and sediments. When surface water and/or sediments are present on or
proximate to a site and the RI has identified an impact the development of remedial alternatives, as set
forth at 6 NYCRR 375-6.7(b), must consider and include provisions to protect the resource and
eliminate or mitigate the threat to public health and the environment from the contaminated surface
water or sediments. The remedy selection process will also consider:
i. whether contamination remaining in soil after the application of the applicable soil
SCGs is impacting, or will have the potential to impact, surface water/sediments proximate to the site by
one of the following pathways:
ii. where the pathways for soil impacts to surface water/sediments identified in
paragraph 1 above are a concern, the remedy must consider, in addition to addressing the source as
provided in paragraph (d)2 above, additional remedial measures to prevent the migration of
contaminants in soil at levels which could impact the water quality or adversely impact the sediments of
a surface water body on or adjacent to the site. Such additional measures include, but are not limited to:
(1) additional remedial actions to address soil contamination in the soils which
are subject to transportation. Such additional actions may be taken site-wide or in buffer zones (areally
or vertically);
(2) additional remedial actions to address contaminated groundwater that is likely
to reach the surface water body at levels which could adversely impact the water body or sediments;
(3) engineering controls to stabilize the soil and control erosion (e.g., vegetated
soil cover);
(4) mitigation of the impact; for example, removing, containing or treating
Final DER-10 Page 129 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
impacted surface water and sediments resulting from any discharge addressed in accordance with
subparagraph i above based upon the RAOs for surface water or sediments identified for the remedial
program; and/or
(5) exposure control measures, including but not limited to the application of a
storm water pollution prevention plan consistent with the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion
and Sediment Control (dated 1997), or updated version.
4. Aquatic ecological resources. Where the FWRIA has identified actual or potential
impacts to aquatic ecological resources in a surface water body, wetlands or sediments present on, or
proximate to, a site, in the development of remedial alternatives the remedial party is required to:
i. evaluate the need for provisions to protect the aquatic resource and eliminate or
mitigate threats to public health and the environment from contaminated surface water or sediments; and
(1) additional remedial actions to address soil contamination in the soils which
are subject to transportation. Such additional actions may be taken site-wide or in buffer zones (areally
or vertically);
(2) additional remedial actions to address contaminated groundwater that is likely
to reach the surface water body at levels which could adversely impact the water body or sediments;
(3) engineering controls (e.g., vegetating the cover system);
(4) mitigation of the impact; for example, removing, containing or treating
impacted surface water and sediments based upon the RAOs for surface water or sediments identified
for the remedial program; and/or
(5) exposure control measures, including but not limited to the application of a
storm water pollution prevention plan consistent with the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion
and Sediment Control (dated 1997), or updated version.
(f) Soil cover. A soil cover is required as an element of any remedy where contamination is
present in the exposed surface soil above the appropriate use-based soil SCG. Exposed surface soil is
the soil which will be present at the surface of a site which is not otherwise covered by the development
at the site (e.g., buildings, pavement, etc.). Soil covers as part of a site remedy to address exposed
surface soil will be in accordance with this subdivision.
1. Soil to be used for the construction of a soil cover must be suitable to sustain the growth
of appropriate vegetation and have concentration of contaminants which for:
i. sites in the BCP, will not exceed the applicable contaminant-specific soil cleanup
objectives as set forth in 6 NYCRR 375-6.7(d)(1); or
ii. all other programs identified by subdivision 1.2(a), should not exceed the applicable
contaminant-specific soil cleanup objectives as set forth in 6 NYCRR 375-6.7(d)(1) unless the site-
specific background concentration for surface soil, as determined by subdivision 3.5.3(c), exceeds the
soil cleanup objectives. In this latter event, the soil cover material imported or reused from the site in
accordance with subdivision 5.4(e) may not exceed the site-specific background concentrations.
2. The depth of the exposed surface soil and hence the required soil cover will be dependent
on the use of the site or the identification of ecological resources. Where the exposed surface soil at a
Final DER-10 Page 130 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
site exceeds the applicable SCO for protection of human health and/or ecological resources, the soil
cover:
iii. when an ecological resource has been identified, as set forth at 6 NYCRR 375-6.6:
3. A demarcation layer will generally be provided for soil covers. Approval of DER is
required to dispense with a demarcation layer. For example, a demarcation layer may not be required
where the soil remaining at the site is at or below background levels. This layer will be located between
the soil cover, or fill meeting the soil cover requirements, and the soil where contamination will remain
at the site.
4. The requirements for soil imported to the site for use, or site soils to be reused, in the soil
cover are addressed in subdivision 5.4(e) and appendix 5.
(a) In accordance with section 4.3, the remedial party should evaluate alternatives using the
evaluation criteria set forth 6 NYCRR 375-1.8(f) in conjunction with the additional guidance provided
for each criterion in subdivisions (b) through (j) of this section.
i. the first two evaluation criteria, subdivisions (b) and (c) below, are threshold
criteria and must be satisfied in order for an alternative to be considered for selection; and
ii. the next six evaluation criteria, subdivisions (d) to (i) below, are primary balancing
criteria which are used to compare the positive and negative aspects of each of the remedial alternatives,
provided the alternative satisfies the threshold criteria.
2. After the decision document is subject to public comment, the final criterion, subdivision
(j) community acceptance, is considered. This modifying criterion is evaluated after any public
comments on the remedy have been received, prior to DER selection of the remedy.
(b) Overall protectiveness of the public health and the environment. This criterion is an
evaluation of the ability of each alternative or the remedy to protect public health and the environment.
1. How each alternative would eliminate, reduce or control through removal, treatment,
containment, engineering controls or institutional controls any existing or potential human exposures or
environmental impacts identified by the RI.
(c) Standards, criteria and guidance (SCGs). The remedy must conform to officially promulgated
standards and criteria that are directly applicable or that are relevant and appropriate. The selection of a
remedy must also take into consideration guidance as appropriate.
1. Conformance with standards and criteria is required, unless good cause exists why
conformity should be dispensed with. Such good cause exist if any of the following are present:
i. the proposed action is only part of a complete program or project that will, as a
whole, conform to such standard or criterion upon completion;
ii. conformity to such standard or criterion will result in greater risk to the public
health and the environment than alternatives;
iv. the program or project will attain a level of performance that is equivalent to that
required by the standard or criterion through the use of another method or approach.
2. Consideration is also given to guidance which through the application of scientific and
engineering judgment, is determined to be applicable to the alternative evaluation.
3. All SCGs for the site are identified along with a discussion of whether or not the remedy
will achieve compliance.
4. For those SCGs that will not be met, acceptable documentation of the basis must be
submitted to DER for approval.
(d) Long-term effectiveness and permanence. This criterion is an evaluation of the long-term
effectiveness and permanence of an alternative or remedy after implementation.
1. If contamination will remain on- or off-site after the selected remedy has been
implemented, this evaluation will assess the impact of the remaining contamination on any of the
following:
i. human exposures;
(f) Short-term impact and effectiveness. This criterion is an evaluation of the potential short-term
adverse environmental impacts and human exposures during the construction and/or implementation of
an alternative or remedy.
1. Identify the potential human exposures, adverse environmental impacts and nuisance
conditions, at the site resulting from the implementation of the remedy or alternative. Identify how they
would be controlled and the effectiveness of the controls. The potential short-term impacts to be
evaluated include, nuisance conditions or potential exposures resulting from increased traffic, including
truck trips, detours or loss of the use of access to property; odors; vapors; dust; habitat disturbance; run
off from the site and noise.
3. The length of time needed to implement the remedy or alternative including time to
achieve the remedial objectives should be estimated.
1. Technical feasibility includes the difficulties associated with construction and the ability
to monitor the effectiveness of an alternative or remedy.
(h) Cost effectiveness. This criterion is an evaluation of the overall cost effectiveness of an
alternative or remedy.
1. A remedy is cost effective if its costs are proportional to its overall effectiveness. To
evaluate cost effectiveness:
2. Capital costs and costs associated with site management for each alternative are estimated
in accordance with subparagraph 4.3(a)5.iii.
(i) Land use. This criterion is an evaluation of the current, intended and reasonably anticipated
future use of the site and its surroundings, as it relates to an alternative or remedy, when unrestricted
levels would not be achieved.
(1) understanding the current and reasonably anticipated future land use is a
critical element in this determination; and
(2) the current use of the site, if it is presently being fully used is the best guide
for future use;
ii. consistency of proposed use with applicable zoning laws and maps;
v. proximity to real property currently used for residential use and to urban,
commercial, industrial, agricultural and recreational areas;
vi. any written and oral comments submitted by members of the public on the proposed
use as part of citizen participation activities;
vii. environmental justice concerns, which for purposes of this evaluation, include the
extent to which the proposed use may reasonably be expected to cause or increase a disproportionate
burden on the community in which the site is located, including low-income minority communities, or to
result in a disproportionate concentration of commercial or industrial uses in what has historically been a
mixed use or residential community;
ix. whether the population growth patterns and projections support the proposed use;
xii. natural resources, including proximity of the site to important federal, state or local
natural resources, including waterways, wildlife refuges, wetlands, or critical habitats of endangered or
threatened species;
xiii. potential vulnerability of groundwater to contamination that might migrate from the
site, including proximity to wellhead protection and groundwater recharge areas and other areas
identified by the state comprehensive groundwater remediation and protection program;
2. The final use determination for a site must be made to complete the remedy-selection
stage of the remedial program. With DER approval, areas of a site or operable units may have different
uses and restrictions provided each is clearly identified and defined by the institutional control and/or
engineering control.
ii: a restricted-use remedial program which relies upon restrictions on the use of the
site. The following represents the hierarchy of the range from the least restrictive to the most restrictive
land uses:
(1) residential Least Restrictive Use
(2) restricted residential
(3) commercial
(4) industrial Most Restrictive Use
ii. is the least restrictive use of the site allowed by such remedial program and would
allow all more restrictive uses to occur on the site (e.g., a site cleanup to a commercial use would also be
protective for industrial use); and
iii. must be consistent with existing zoning laws or maps, unless it:
(1) is based on a cleanup level that would allow a less restrictive use of the site
Final DER-10 Page 135 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
than would be allowed based upon current zoning laws or maps (e.g., DER may approve a cleanup to
residential levels for a property which is zoned for commercial use); or
(2) can be shown to DER=s satisfaction that zoning changes are or will be sought,
in which event DEC will conditionally approve the remedy but will not issue a certificate of completion
or closure letter until such use is consistent with existing zoning laws or maps.
(j) Community acceptance. This criterion is evaluated after the public review of the remedy
selection process as part of the final DER selection/approval of a remedy for a site.
1. Any public comment relative to these criteria will be considered by DER after the close
of the public comment period.
(a) The steps in the development and evaluation of alternatives to support the selection of a
remedy for the applicable programs identified in section 1.2 are set forth in this subdivision.
1. Step 1. Identify the remedial goals for the site in accordance with subdivision 4.1(b) for
the applicable program identified in subdivision 1.2(a).
iii. are medium specific (e.g., soil, groundwater, etc.), similar to the development of
RAOs, and should identify:
(1) the volumes or areas to be remediated for that alternative, for each medium
addressed, characterized with respect to the requirements for the identified use of the site; and
(2) take into account the contaminant and geologic characterization of the site or
operable unit;
iv. give preference to presumptive remedies where they are available to address the
contamination identified. If a presumptive remedy is applicable:
(1) the list of presumptive remedies provided in applicable DER guidance should
be used to identify the appropriate presumptive remedy; and
(2) this step is streamlined with the only requirement being the estimating of the
volumes/areas of contaminated media to be addressed before proceeding directly to paragraph 5 below;
v. consider the use of innovative technologies, where available and applicable to site
Final DER-10 Page 136 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
contamination; and
vi. identify and discuss technologies which are clearly not appropriate for the site due
to site-specific factors or constraints and eliminate them from further consideration .
4. Step 4. Identify and screen technologies for effectiveness and implementability. In this
step of the process:
i. technology types and process options that are appropriate to the site-specific
conditions and contamination are identified for each of the general response actions identified above:
(1) technology types include, but are not limited to, general categories such as
chemical treatment, enhanced bio-degradation, thermal destruction, immobilization, capping, de-
watering and
(2) process options that correspond with the technology types; for example
chemical treatment would include, but not be limited to, precipitation, ion exchange, oxidation/reduction
or others as other technology process options are identified;
ii. identified technologies are then screened, on a medium specific basis to identify
those that are:
(1) technically implementable; and
(2) can, either alone or in combination with other technologies, meet the RAOs.
iii. pilot tests may be conducted or more data collected to support the feasibility of a
technology, if applicable or requested by DER;
iv. technologies that are not technically implementable shall be dropped from further
consideration; and
v. technologies that remain are used in the next step to assemble alternatives.
5. Step 5. Assemble the technologies remaining after Step 4, unless DER elects or agrees to
limit the number of alternatives to be evaluated, into operable unit(s) or site wide alternative(s). In this
step, the potential technologies are assembled into media-specific or site wide remedial alternatives. The
identified alternatives should:
i. use the description of the alternative or remedy set forth in applicable DER
guidance, where it is described in that guidance;
ii. be developed and defined to a level of detail such that each alternative is clearly
defined with respect to:
iii. develop estimates of the remedial action costs including all costs associated with
the development and implementation of a remedial action, which include:
(1) all direct and indirect capital costs and engineering costs for the construction
of all facilities and process equipment, labor, materials, construction equipment and services, land
purchase and land preparation/ development and relocation expenses;
(2) costs associated with the institutional controls required for a remedy - While
the initial or capital cost of an institutional control may be minimal, the long-term costs must be
estimated. Costs for securing the institutional control must be included in the estimate, such as payment
for the easement however effects on the value of the property are not included;
(3) costs for system start up and testing, facility operation, maintenance and
repair, continuous performance and effectiveness monitoring, periodic site condition reviews; and
(4) costs for legal, administrative and capital costs associated with the placement
of institutional controls on a property and other site management activities and/or certifications;
iv. also present the net present worth of all remedial action costs over time by
discounting all future costs to the current calendar year. The present worth costing analyses will use a
current discount rate as specified by DER at the time of remedial action selection, which should be
applied before taxes and after inflation. The period of performance evaluated should not exceed 30 years
to allow consistent evaluation of costs only. It does not imply that the site management of a remedy will
end after the cost estimating period, if applicable the remedy should note if it will exceed 30 years; and
v. at the conclusion of this step eliminate alternatives that are not technically
implementable or prove not to be cost effective relative to the other alternatives developed from further
consideration.
6. Step 6. Analyze the alternative(s) pursuant to the evaluation criteria in section 4.2. In this
step:
ii. where more than one alternative is developed, conduct a comparative analysis of
each alternative to the other alternatives using the same criteria identified in subparagraph i above;
iv. the criteria in subdivision 4.2(j), community acceptance of the remedy, is evaluated
after any public comment period in accordance with DER 23 - Citizen Participation Handbook.
7. Step 7. Recommend a remedy for the site. Except for a State funded feasibility study, this
step results in the identification of a recommended remedy and summarizes the reasons for the
recommendation utilizing the criteria in section 4.2.
(b) Evaluation of institutional and/or engineering controls. DER may approve a remedy for a site
Final DER-10 Page 138 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
where the remedial program is being implemented pursuant to subdivision 1.2(a) that includes
institutional controls and/or engineering controls as components of a proposed remedial program,
provided the remedy selection report detailed in section 4.4 includes an evaluation of the institutional
and/or engineering controls in accordance with this subdivision.
1. A complete description of any proposed use restrictions and/or institutional controls and
the mechanisms that will be used to implement, maintain, monitor and enforce such restrictions and
controls, by the remedial party and by state and local government.
2. A complete description of any proposed engineering controls and any site management
requirements, including the mechanisms that will be used to continually implement, maintain, monitor
and enforce such controls and requirements, both by the remedial party and by the state and local
government.
5. Where appropriate, as set forth in 6 NYCRR 375-1.11(c), DER may require financial
assurance to ensure the long term site management and enforcement of any such controls.
(a) The purpose of the reports outlined in this section are to document the process identified in
subdivision 4.3(a) for the development and evaluation of remedial alternatives for the programs
identified in subdivision 1.2(a).
1. Consistent with the level of documentation required by the site remedial program these
reports will document:
ii. the evaluation of the alternatives based on the criteria presented in section 4.2; and
2. Remedial selection reporting requirements for the applicable programs are as follows:
iii. Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP). An alternatives analysis (AA) report or the
section of the remedial work plan presenting the alternatives analysis, prepared in accordance with
subdivision (c) below;
iv. Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). An alternatives analysis (AA) report or section
of the remedial action work plan presenting the alternatives analysis, prepared in accordance with
subdivision (c) below, unless the site is a class 2 site where an FS (see subdivision (b)) is required; or
3. The feasibility study and alternatives analysis, detailed in subdivisions (b) and (c) below,
must be signed and stamped by a professional engineer licensed to practice in NYS in accordance with
section 1.5.
(b) Feasibility Study (FS). The FS is the required remedy selection report for a site in any of the
programs identified by subdivision 1.2(a), which is listed as a class 2 site on the NYS Registry of
Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal (Registry) Sites. The FS develops and evaluates options for a
remedial action in accordance with CERCLA [40 CFR 300.430(e)] and a remedial party in any of the
programs may also elect to prepare a FS to document the remedy selection process.
1. The FS emphasizes data analysis and is generally performed in an iterative fashion with
the RI using data gathered during the RI to:
ii. define the nature and extent of contamination to be addressed by the alternatives
developed;
iii. identify the RAOs for the site, in accordance with subdivisions 4.1(b) and (c);
2. The FS is an engineering report which documents the decision-making process for the
evaluation of a remedy includes:
i. the RAOs established for the site in accordance with subdivision 4.1(c);
ii. each of the steps of the remedy evaluation outlined in subdivision 4.3(a) for the
development and selection of alternatives;
i. a no action or, where an IRM may already have addressed the disposal, no further
action alternative;
ii. one or more alternatives capable of achieving unrestricted use, one of which is to be
carried beyond step 5, as set forth in subdivision 4.3(a) into the final evaluation of alternatives;
iii. one or more alternatives capable of achieving the most feasible and least restrictive
use of the site, as set forth in subparagraph 4.2(i)3.ii, as follows:
iv. the use of the site, however, must be consistent with local zoning in accordance
with 6 NYCRR 375-1.8(g)(4) and (5) for the alternatives developed, unless it can be shown to DER=s
satisfaction that zoning changes are or will be sought. In that event, DEC will:
i. introduction;
ii. site description and history;
iii. summary of RI and exposure assessment;
iv. remedial goals and remedial action objectives;
v. general response actions;
vi. identification and screening of technologies;
vii. development and analysis of alternatives, which
(1) assembles technologies into alternatives;
(2) evaluates alternatives with respect to the criteria in section 4.2; and
(3) evaluates the institutional/engineering controls for the selected remedy, in
accordance with subdivision 4.3(b); and
viii. recommended remedy, with a discussion supporting why it is recommended, except
as set forth in paragraph 4.3(a)7.
(c) Alternatives Analysis Report (AA). The AA is a report, or portion of a remedial work plan,
which identifies one or more alternatives and evaluates the effectiveness of each with respect to the
criteria in subdivision 4.2(a). The AA is generally prepared by the remedial party for all sites other than
class 2 Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site Registry sites (see subdivision (b) above).
i. the RAOs for the site, in accordance with section 4.1 above;
ii. the type and number of alternatives required to be evaluated for the applicable
remedial program, in accordance with subdivision (d) below;
iii. the recommended remedy=s compliance with the criteria identified in section 4.2;
iv. only those steps in subdivision 4.3(a), required by the program for which the AA is
prepared, in accordance with subdivision (d) below;
vii. the use of the site must be consistent with local zoning in accordance with 6
NYCRR 375-1.8(g)(4) and (5) for the alternatives developed, unless it can be shown to DER=s
satisfaction that zoning changes are or will be sought. In that event, DEC will
i. introduction;
ii.site description and history;
iii.
summary of RI and exposure assessment;
iv.remedial goals and remedial action objectives;
v. development and analysis of alternatives, which
(1) assembles technologies into alternatives;
(2) evaluates alternatives with respect to the criteria in section 4.2; and
(3) evaluates the institutional/engineering controls for the selected remedy, in
accordance with subdivision 4.2(b); and
vi. recommended remedy, with a discussion supporting why it is recommended.
i. the no action or, where an IRM may already have addressed the disposal, no further
action alternative;
i. one alternative, if the alternative proposed will achieve unrestricted use relative to
soil contamination without the use of institutional/engineering controls (Track 1);
ii. two or more alternatives, if the proposal is for restricted use, where:
(1) one alternative will achieve unrestricted use relative to soil contamination,
without the use of institutional/engineering controls; and
(2) such other alternatives proposed by the remedial party which would achieve
the cleanup Track and intended use identified for the site; and
(1) if the site has been determined by DER to represent a significant threat
pursuant to 6 NYCRR 375-1.7, DER may require the remedial party develop and evaluate additional
alternatives which would achieve the cleanup Track and intended use identified for the site; or
(2) if the site had been determined by DER not to constitute a significant threat;
DER may require a Track 2 evaluation if one has not already been evaluated after considering the
following factors:
(A) the degree to which the remedy selection criteria would be better
satisfied by a Track 2 cleanup;
(B) the degree of impact a Track 2 cleanup would have on the applicant's
ability to successfully cleanup and/or redevelop the property;
(C) the benefit to the environment to be realized by the expeditious
remediation of the property; and
(D) the economic benefit to the State to be realized by the expeditious
remediation of the property.
3. The AA for the a VCP or petroleum bulk storage site subject to subdivision 1.2(b) will
develop at least one alternative:
ii. the remedial party elects to evaluate and document additional alternatives.
(a) DER will prepare and issue an agency decision document (DD) for the applicable programs
identified in subdivisions 1.2(a) and (b).
1. For State Superfund and ERP sites. DER will prepare a Proposed Remedial Action Plan
(PRAP) which identifies the DER-proposed remedy for the site or operable unit(s), which summarizes
the contamination identified by the RI, and the alternatives considered and discusses the reasons for
proposing the remedy. The PRAP will:
ii. be made available for review and subject to public comment for no less than:
iii. result in DER preparing and issuing a Record of Decision (ROD), after completion
of the public comment period,. The ROD will:
2. Except as set forth in subdivision 4.5 (b) for BCP, VCP, petroleum remediation sites and
bulk storage sites subject to this guidance, DER will prepare a draft DD which summarizes the
contamination identified by the RI and detail the components of the site remedy. The DD will:
i. be made available for review and public comment for a period of no less than:
ii. after completion of the public comment period, DER will prepare and issue a final
DD.
(b) For Class 2 sites in either the VCP or BCP, paragraph (a)1 above will apply for the DD.
5.1 General
(a) This chapter provides guidance for the remedial design and remedial action elements of the
remedial program, including all interim remedial measures (IRMs) and underground storage tank (UST)
removals. The section index is provided below.
1. Section 5.2 Preparation of a Remedial Design (formal plans and specifications level of
detail), including the remedial design work plan.
6. Section 5.7 Remedial Construction Schedules and Reporting Requirements for the
Remedial Action.
(b) Schedule and notices. Schedule and/or notice requirements apply to the design and
implementation of a remedial program.
1. The remedial party will comply with the schedule of submissions and notice provisions
of the oversight document.
2. If not already expressly addressed by paragraph 1 above, the remedial party must:
ii. notify DER at least 7 business days prior to the initiation of any field investigations
conducted in support of the remedial design; and
i. remedial design will be included in the remedial design work plan; and
ii. remedial action will be provided with the submission of the remedial design or the
remedial action work plan, in accordance with section 5.7.
1. If a remedy was selected pursuant to Chapter 4, the design and construction work plans
will be prepared in accordance with sections 5.2 and 5.3 prior to implementation.
2. The remedial action design and implementation should comply with the remedy selected
by the approved DER decision document, unless a subsequent modification has been approved by DER
in accordance with applicable DER policies (see, for example, DER-2 Making Changes to Selected
Remedies).
i. comply with applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and requirements;
iii. provide specifications and data necessary for the development and implementation
of a health and safety plan, as described by section 1.9, to include, at a minimum, a site-specific:
(1) community air monitoring plan (CAMP), prepared in accordance with the
generic CAMP guidance in Appendix 1A; and
(2) fugitive dust/particulate monitoring component of the CAMP, prepared in
accordance with Appendix 1B;
iv. where institutional or engineering controls are required, provide for development of
an appropriate SMP in accordance with Chapter 6; and
4. Access. Documentation of the necessary property access to implement and maintain the
remedial program, including specific milestones to obtain the access, if required.
7. Sustainability. DER will foster the use of best management practices (BMPs) for green
remediation at contaminated sites. Sustainable practices result in cleanups minimizing the environmental
and energy Afootprints@ of all actions taken during a project life. BMPs of green remediation emphasize
a Awhole-site@ approach that closely evaluates core elements of a cleanup project:
(d) Protection of identified fish and wildlife resources. For sites where fish and wildlife resources
have been identified as impacted by site-related contamination and require remedial action or are likely
to be impacted by the remediation of other areas of the site, the remedial design or remedial action work
plan must include appropriate measures for delineating and protecting the identified resource or habitat
and for monitoring related impacts during the implementation of the remedial action.
1. The steps necessary to comply with this subdivision are collectively identified as a
FWRIA Part 4, resource considerations for design and construction.
2. Any ecological resources identified by the FWRIA Part 1, completed in accordance with
subsection 3.10.1, should be delineated in the field and shown on the construction drawings if they:
3. Regional Division of Fish Wildlife and Marine Resources (DFW&MR) and/or the NYS
Natural Heritage Program representatives should be contacted to arrange delineation of:
i. NYS regulated wetlands. A wetland field delineation may be required as part of the
design development to provide a reference for restoration and/or mitigation of wetlands disturbed or
filled in as part of the remedial action; or
7. A plan for any required baseline or post-remedial fish and wildlife resource monitoring
should be developed during the remedial design and included in the monitoring plan included as a
component of the SMP developed according to subsection 6.2.2. Any required baseline monitoring of
the site and/or reference locations should be completed prior to the start of construction activities on site,
in accordance with the schedule developed pursuant to paragraph (b)3 above.
8. All fish and wildlife and natural resources-related restrictions, special provisions,
restorations, erosion control or other protective measures should be included on the construction
drawings.
i. implementation of soil and sediment erosion and storm water management and
monitoring procedures developed in accordance with sections 5.2 or 5.3 to ensure protection of
terrestrial, aquatic and marine habitats potentially affected by runoff or discharge from the construction
area;
ii. surface water monitoring for turbidity, particulates, sheens and contaminants of
concern, including the use of passive in-situ contaminant extraction samplers (PISCES) or semi-
permeable membrane devices (SPMDs);
iii. monitoring water levels and/or vegetation in wetlands or water bodies affected by
water management activities such as temporary dewatering facilities;
(e) Remedial action monitoring plan (RAMP). For sites where the remedial action may require a
significant amount of monitoring during the action, the remedial design should consider including a
RAMP.
(f) Community and environmental response plan (CERP). For certain sites where the remedial
action will require controls, monitoring or work practices to address the potential for short-term impacts
to the surrounding community or environmental resources, the remedial design or remedial action work
plan should consider the development of a CERP. A CERP, while not appropriate for many sites, may
be helpful by providing the measures to protect the community and environment during the remedial
action in one location in the document. This has been shown to facilitate citizen participation efforts and
provide information on required protective measures to contractors and subcontractors.
1. For sites where only a CAMP is required, a standalone CERP should not be prepared.
2. A CERP should be considered for sites where concerns have been raised relative to the
protection of the public during the implementation of the remedial action, due to the proximity of
adjacent properties or other sensitive receptors and/or where the public will continue to have limited
access to a site during the remedial action.
3. The CERP should be a concise summary of the controls, monitoring or work practices
and how they combine to provide the necessary protection of the community and ecological resources,
the details of how these are to be implemented will be included in the technical specifications of the
design.
4. The elements of a CERP should include, as applicable to the site, the following:
iii. vapor/odor management plans, which identify the measures to be undertaken during
the remedial action to monitor, prevent or control the generation of vapor or odors during the remedial
action. This element of the CERP should identify the triggers which will require action to mitigate
vapor/odors or which may trigger the need for alternative construction methods or shut down of the
operation resulting in the odors or vapors;
iv. noise and vibration mitigation, which identifies the measures to be undertaken
during the remedial action to monitor for and control noise and/or vibration resulting from activities at
the site. This should include levels of measurable noise or vibration which may trigger the need for
alternative construction methods or shut down of the operation resulting in the noise or vibration;
Final DER-10 Page 149 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
v. measures to secure the site from trespassers;
vi. erosion and sediment control measures to comply with the substantive requirements
of a storm water management permit;
vii. waste management measures, which identify the steps to be undertaken by the
contractor or remedial party to manage the waste storage, treatment or disposal resulting from the
implementation of the remedy;
viii. water management and treatment measures, which identify the steps to be
undertaken to manage the storage, treatment or disposal of contaminated water generated by the
implementation of the remedy;
ix. traffic control and site access plans, which identify the measures to be undertaken to
control traffic, deliveries and waste transport from the site;
x. decontamination of trucks and equipment leaving the site, which describes the
procedures and equipment necessary to prevent cross-contamination from the excavation to public areas
(highways, roads, support trailer, vehicles, etc.); and/or
(g) Protection of cultural resources. For sites where cultural resources have been identified which
may be disturbed or otherwise impacted by the implementation of the remedy, the design document
should include measures to address or mitigate the disturbance or impact. The DEC website identified in
the table of contents includes links to applicable guidance identifying the measures necessary for
compliance.
(a) This section applies where a formal remedial design is required by DER or the remedial party
elects to perform this level of detail. Where a formal remedial design is not prepared, a remedial action
work plan should be completed, as detailed in section 5.3.
(b) The first step in a formal design is the preparation and submission of a remedial design work
plan (RDWP) according to the schedule in the oversight document. The RDWP should be in a format
that is consistent with the outline and substance of this subdivision.
1. Introduction. The first section of the RDWP must summarize the nature and extent of
contamination identified by the RI and the selected remedy to be implemented by the design. If the RI
and remedy selection reports were previously approved as part of a DER remedial program, a copy of
the decision document may be provided in lieu of this summary. The identification of all applicable
SCGs is included in this section.
2. Design investigations. The second section of the RDWP must identify any data needed to
complete the design and include work plans for any investigations to gather this information. This
section of the RDWP should include:
iii. a scope of work, as needed to clarify the intent and goals of the sampling; and
iv. if the same figures developed during previous investigations at the site cannot be
used:
v. a schedule which identifies the documents to be prepared as part of the design and
the timing for their submission, as well as for conducting any design investigation.
3. Design scope. The third section of the RDWP must provide a detailed description of the
remedial action and the remedial technology(ies) for which the design is to be provided, detailed by OU
or AOC. Consideration should be given to the need for the inclusion of a RAMP or CERP in the final
design, as set forth in subdivisions 5.1(e) and (f) respectively.
4. Permits or other authorizations. The fourth section of the RDWP must identify all
required permits and/or exempted permits or other authorizations, in accordance with section 1.10, to be
addressed by the design including the identify all substantive conditions to be addressed in the design.
5. Schedule. The fifth section of the RDWP is to be a detailed schedule for the completion
of the design, including any necessary design investigations. This section should also identify and
discuss, to the extent necessary, the proposed steps and timing for procurement of the remedial action
contractor
6. Post construction plans. To the extent necessary, a sixth section of the RDWP should
outline:
(1) the proposed initiation of any portion of the remedy subject to such plan and
the items identified in paragraph 5, above; and
(2) that the SMP must be approved by the DER prior to the approval of the FER;
ii. the scope of the required surveys and documents to support the development of the
environmental easement or deed restriction and a schedule for the steps needed to complete this
requirement;
iii. describe the institutional controls to be implemented. Where the remedial party is
not the owner of the site on which the institutional control will be placed, the work plan should require a
written agreement from the property owner committing to the necessary environmental easement prior
Final DER-10 Page 151 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
to the design completion; and/or
7. Site figures. The last section of the RDWP is to include a scaled site map identifying all
areas where remedial actions will be conducted, which should specify, as appropriate or identified at this
point in the project, the following:
ii. the areas, with volumes if applicable, for each environmental medium to be
remediated;
iv. the location, depth and concentration of all contaminants in excess of the remedial
action objectives;
v. sample locations, depths and parameters for all confirmation and/or documentation
samples in accordance with subdivision 5.4(b); and
vi. wetlands, streams or other habitats potentially disturbed by the remedial action.
(c) A remedial design should incorporate all of the elements of the remedy into a set of biddable
quality plans and specifications.
2. A 95% completion submission of the design plans and specifications is typically required
by the RDWP. This submission does not have to be stamped by a professional engineer, unless the
remedial party will use the 95% design to procure a contractor who then produces certain plans, based
on the remedial party=s performance specifications, to provide the final design. In this event, the 95%
submission is to be stamped and signed by a professional engineer as set forth in section 1.5.
3. A final design submission of the plans and specifications which is signed and stamped by
a professional engineer licensed to practice in NYS and includes the required certification set forth in
subdivision 1.5(b).
(d) The remedial design should incorporate provisions for the preparation, at the completion of
the remedial action, of a set of Aas-built@ drawings to be stamped by a professional engineer licensed to
Final DER-10 Page 152 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
practice in New York State as set forth at section 1.5 and include the appropriate certification set forth in
subdivision 1.5(b), in addition to a CCR or FER, as set forth in section 5.8.
(e) Electronic submissions. The remedial design and all required reports and/or documentation
identified by this section must be provided in an electronic format in accordance with section 1.15.
(a) If a remedial design in accordance with section 5.2 is not required, a remedial action work
plan (RAWP) in a format that conforms with the outline of subdivision (b) below is to be provided in
accordance with the schedule contained in the applicable oversight document.
1. The RAWP should address the requirements of sections 5.1 and 5.2, however with less
detail than anticipated by a formal design.
2. The final RAWP must be stamped and signed by a professional engineer licensed to
practice in New York State in accordance with section 1.5 and include the certification as set forth in
subdivision 1.5(b).
(b) The RAWP must include, at a minimum, the elements identified and detailed in this
subdivision.
2. The location and description of any temporary construction facilities or treatment units
required to implement the remedial action. A listing of all applicable SCGs relating to the construction
of on-site remedial units, including inspection and professional engineer certification.
3. A description of soil and sediment erosion control, storm water management and
monitoring and dust, odor and organic vapor control and monitoring procedures to be implemented
during remedial activities, if applicable. Consideration should be given to the need for a CERP as set
forth in subdivision 5.1(f).
4. A health and safety plan pursuant to section 1.9, to include the CAMP.
10. A requirement to submit a SMP in accordance with section 6, including a schedule for the
submission of the final plan, taking into account the items identified in paragraph 5.2(b)7.
11. Drawings and figures, as needed, to define the elements of the remedial construction in
satisfaction of paragraphs 1 through 6 above.
(c) The remedial design should incorporate provisions for the preparation, at the completion of
the remedial action, of a set of Aas-built@ drawings, in addition to a construction completion or FER, as
set forth in section 5.8 in accordance with subdivision 5.2(b).
(d) Electronic submissions. The RAWP and any required reports and/or documentation identified
by this section must be provided in an electronic format in accordance with section 1.15.
(a) Compliance with community air monitoring plan (CAMP), dust monitoring or other controls
identified by the CERP, if required for the remedial action. The approved CAMP and the fugitive dust/
particulate monitoring program, which is a component of the CAMP, are critical elements in the
evaluation of RA compliance.
3. Any monitoring results which exceed the action levels set by the CAMP are to be:
4. If applicable for the remedial action, a report on any other controls identified by a CERP.
(b) Compliance with site-specific soil cleanup levels. Evidence of compliance with a remedy=s
achievement of the soil cleanup levels identified for the site will be through the collection and analysis
of compliance samples during the implementation of the remedy. These compliance samples, either
documentation or confirmation samples, are discussed in paragraphs 1 and 2 below and are determined
based upon the endpoint defined for the remedial action by the decision document.
2. Confirmation samples, as defined in paragraph 1.3(b)3, are required when the limits of
soil removal are to be determined by achieving a soil cleanup level in the field. Confirmation samples
are to demonstrate that the remedy has achieved the soil cleanup levels identified by the decision
document, determined as follows:
i. the use of averages, means or other statistical techniques are generally not allowed,
however, recognizing the heterogeneity of contaminated sites and the uncertainty of sampling and
analysis of samples, the DER project manager may judge that remediation is complete for sites when:
ii. should the remedial party disagree with the professional judgment of the DER
project manager, the remedial party may submit a justification that there is a 95% confidence level that
the soil cleanup levels have been achieved using the procedure defined in the EPA guidance document
Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term. USEPA Publication 9285.7-081
(May 1992). DER will evaluate this information and make a determination whether the sampling
adequately documents that the objectives have been achieved.
3. All sample collection should be in accordance with sections 3.2 through 3.5.
4. All sample analysis and the reported results should be consistent with sections 2.1
through 2.3.
5. The following are minimum confirmation sampling frequencies for soil excavations of:
i. less than 20 feet in perimeter, include one bottom sample and one sidewall sample
biased in the direction of surface runoff;
(1) surface soil levels, one sample from the top of each sidewall for every 30
Final DER-10 Page 155 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
linear feet of sidewall and one sample from the excavation bottom for every 900 square feet of bottom
area; and
(2) subsurface soil cleanup levels, one sample from the bottom of each sidewall
for every 30 linear feet of sidewall and one sample from the excavation bottom for every 900 square feet
of bottom area;
iii. greater than 300 feet in perimeter, should be in accordance with either:
vi. for side or bottom samples, for volatile organic compounds in an excavation:
(1) within 24 hours of excavation, they should be taken from the zero to six-inch
interval at the excavation floor; or
(2) after 24 hours, the samples should be taken at six to twelve inches; and
vii. no water should be present in the excavation bottom where bottom samples are
collected.
6. For tank excavations. When tanks are excavated, if contaminated soil is removed,
confirmation soil samples for laboratory analysis should be taken:`
ii. if the excavation is enlarged horizontally beyond the immediate tank removal area,
additional soil samples will be taken pursuant to paragraph 5.4(b)2 or in accordance with subdivision
5.5(c) when a site characterization in accordance with subdivision 3.1(a) is determined necessary by this
subdivision.
7. Confirmation and/or documentation sample locations and depth should be biased toward
the:
i. areas and depths of highest contamination identified during previous sampling
episodes unless field indicators such as field instrument measurements or visual contamination identified
during the remedial action indicate that other locations and depths may be more heavily contaminated;
and
ii. locations and depths of the highest expected contamination.
(c) Compliance for in-situ treatment technologies. A sampling program should be undertaken for
sites where an in situ remediation technology is a component of the remedial program.
i. determine whether the design parameters of the treatment system are being
achieved;
ii. determine whether any discharges are compliant with identified permit or exempted
permit, limits established for the site; and/or
iii. document the effectiveness of the system, in accordance with subdivision 6.2.2 (c).
(d) Compliance with site restoration activities. All areas of the site or adjacent areas which are
disturbed or otherwise used during implementation of the remedial program should be subject to the site
restoration requirements of the site decision document or approved remedial design/RAWP.
i. restoring the site and/or adjacent areas to pre-remediation conditions with respect to
topography, hydrology and vegetation, to the extent practicable;
ii. restoration related to an approved development plan for the site (e.g., increasing soil
cover depth to account for a 100 year flood elevation); or
iii. where development is planned and a final restoration has not been identified or
approved, the RD or RAWP will provide for, at a minimum, restoration sufficient to ensure the
effectiveness and compliance with the remedial program.
2. It should be noted that some site restoration measures for remedial activities within or
adjacent to wetlands, flood plains or other environmentally sensitive areas may have further
requirements under the following DEC regulations (e.g., 6 NYCRR Parts 182, 500-502, 608, 661 &
663).
3. Where site restoration calls for the abandonment of monitoring, recovery, injection or
other wells installed as part of the remedial program, the decommissioning should be approved by DER
and performed in accordance with DEC guidance, e.g. CP-43 Commissioner’s Policy on Groundwater
Monitoring Well Decommissioning, available on DEC’s website identified in the table of contents.
(e) Compliance for soil which exists at or is imported to a site. Soil which exists at, or is imported
to, a site which is used to construct a soil cover, site cap system or as excavation backfill must meet the
requirements of 6 NYCRR 375-6.7(d) and;
1. Soil imported to a site for use in a soil cap, soil cover or as backfill will:
i. comply with any RAOs which may be identified for a soil cover or the soil
comprising a cap, by a remedy selected pursuant to Chapter 4.
iii. be recognizable soil or other unregulated material as set forth in 6 NYCRR Part 360
and materials for which DEC has issued a beneficial use determination, which comply with the
requirements of paragraph 2 below;
iv. not exceed the allowable constituent levels for imported fill or soil as described in
paragraph 2 below, unless a site-specific exemption is provided by DER in accordance with paragraph 8
below; and
2. The fill material should not exceed the allowable constituent levels for imported fill or
soil for the use of the site which are provided in Appendix 5, taking consideration that where the
protection of ecological resources SCO is required for the site, the protection of ecological resources
SCO must also be considered in selecting the lowest of the applicable SCGs. Where a compound is
detected which is not on the Appendix 5 table the remedial party should:
3. Sampling is required for all imported soil for use as backfill or cover material. Sampling
frequency of the material will be determined by the remedial design or remedial action work plan:
ii. with a minimum one sample analyzed from every new source, at the following
sampling frequency for:
(1) soil or sand imported from a virgin mine/pit, at least one round of
characterization samples for the initial 100 cubic yards of material, in accordance with Table 5.4(e)10
below;
(2) material sources other than a virgin mine/pit (e.g., a former manufacturing
site), in accordance with Table 5.4(e)10; or
(3) sites where large amounts of cover material/backfill are required, the sampling
frequency can be reduced from that specified in Table 5.4(e)10 once a trend of compliance is
established; and
iii. the DER project manager may modify the number of samples required by
subparagraph ii above based on the site being remediated and the source of the material, in accordance
with the modification provisions set forth in section 1.6.
4. Reuse of soil from the site. Soil originating on the site may be reused on the site or
exported for reuse provided sampling demonstrates compliance with SCGs as detailed in Table 5.4(e)4.
Soil which is not going off-site for reuse will be disposed in a permitted treatment, storage or disposal
facility, unless paragraph 10 below provides for such export.
Final DER-10 Page 158 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
Table 5.4(e)4 Reuse of Soil [for Paragraph 5.4(e)4]
Soil on the Site Meets: Reuse on the Site: Off-site Export & Reuse:
Unrestricted Soil SCGs Without restrictions Without restrictions
Meets the Applicable Use- In the soil cover/cap or as Not Allowed, unless going to a site
based and Groundwater backfill within the area of the with IC subject to a 6 NYCRR Part
Protection SCG and where site subject to the IC. 360 Beneficial Use Determination
Appropriate Protection of (BUD).
Ecological Resources Soil
SCGs for a Site w/ an IC
& SMP.
Meets Site-Specific Without restrictions. (Does not Not Allowed, unless going to a site
Background Soil Levels. apply to sites in the BCP.) with IC subject to a 6 NYCRR Part
360 BUD.
Site-specific cleanup goals Placement below the soil Not Allowed, unless going to a site
for subsurface soil cover/cap within the area of the with IC subject to a 6 NYCRR Part
site subject to the IC. 360 BUD.
5. Material other than soil imported to a site. The following material may be imported,
without chemical testing, to be used as backfill beneath pavement, buildings or as part of the final site
cover, provided that it contains less than 10% by weight material which would pass through a size 80
sieve and consists of:
i. gravel, rock or stone, consisting of virgin material from a permitted mine or quarry;
or
ii. recycled concrete or brick from a DEC registered construction and demolition
debris processing facility if the material conforms to the requirements of Section 304 of the New York
State Department of Transportation Standard Specifications Construction and Materials Volume 1
(2002).
6. The remedial party must provide documentation of the source of fill to DER for approval
of the source of the material before it is used on the site, which should include:
i. the name of the person providing the documentation and relationship to the source
of the fill;
iv. if no prior approval is available for the source, a brief history of the use of the
property which is the source of the fill.
7. Bills of lading should be provided to DER to document that the fill delivered was from a
DER-approved source(s).
8. For all remedial programs except those developed pursuant to the BCP, DEC may issue a
ii. depth of the placement of the backfill material relative to the surface or subsurface
structures;
9. For remedial programs pursuant to the BCP, DEC can only provide a site-specific
exemption for backfill consistent with the provisions of paragraph 8 above as follows:
i. for Track 2 and Track 3 cleanups, for soils greater than 15 feet below ground
surface; or
ii. for Track 4 cleanups, for soils beneath buildings, pavement and other improvements
or for soils beneath the soil cover system or soil cap over exposed surface soils.
10. Sampling fill imported to or exported from a site. The remedial party will sample and
analyze the fill being imported to the site in accordance with this subdivision and Table 5.4(e)10.
Samples of the fill will be collected based on the soil quantity and type of constituents identified in the
table and will be a combination of discrete and composite samples, handled as follows:
i. for VOCs only, grab samples are allowed. These grab samples are one or more
discrete samples taken from the fill, with the number as specified in the volatile column of Table
5.4(e)10 for the soil quantity in question, and analyzed for the VOCs identified in Appendix 5; or
(1) one or more composite samples are collected from the volume of soil
identified in Table 5.4(e)10 for analysis, with each composite from a different location in the fill
volume;
(2) each composite is prepared by collecting discrete samples from 3 to 5 random
locations from the volume of soil to be tested; and
(3) the discrete samples are mixed, and after mixing, a sample of the mixture is
analyzed for the SVOCs, inorganic and PCBs/pesticide constituents identified in Appendix 5.
(f) Compliance for soil exported from a site for reuse. For soil that is being exported from a site
to locations other than permitted disposal facilities, the handling requirements are set forth in this
subdivision and in paragraph 5.4(e)4.
1. Levels of contamination must not exceed the lower of the groundwater and residential
use levels as shown in Appendix 5, absent a beneficial use determination issued by DEC. DER will
coordinate with the Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials (DSHM), prior to the start of the remedial
action, relative to whether the exported soil can be used beneficially in accordance with 6 NYCRR 360-
1. The sampling and analysis requirements are set forth in paragraph 5.4(e)10.
2. The number of required samples are specified in Table 5.4(e)10 and paragraph (e)10
above, which may be modified by the DER project manager based on various factors, including the
location of the site receiving the soil.
(g) Compliance for the decommissioning of monitoring wells. All monitoring wells not required
for site management should be decommissioned in accordance with paragraph (d)6 above prior to DER
approval of the FER.
(a) The first step for underground storage tank (UST) closure is the identification, removal,
treatment, containment and/or stabilization of the contents to prevent contaminant exposure to receptors
and to prevent further movement of contaminants through any pathway as set forth herein.
1. A health and safety plan for the site is developed, as described in section 1.9, by a
qualified individual in accordance with subparagraph 1.5(a)3.i.
2. Underground tank closures not performed in accordance with this section will require a
certification of the closure report by a professional engineer, as described in section 1.5.
4. DEC is required to be notified if a spill is discovered. The notification is made to the Spill
Hotline (1-800-457-7362) within two (2) hours of discovery.
5. For more information relative to the technical requirements for closure of a tank, see the
applicable DEC guidance document, Permanent Closure of Petroleum Tanks (1987/1998/2003).
(b) The procedures set forth in this subdivision should be followed for the closure of all USTs
regulated in NYS and any other tank found to have caused a release to the environment.
1. DER must be provided ten (10) days notice prior to the closure of a regulated UST or
other tank for which DER oversight is sought or mandated, unless otherwise directed by DER.
2. Provide the petroleum bulk storage modification form required by 6 NYCRR 612.2(d) or
for chemical bulk storage tanks 6 NYCRR 596.2(f).
ii. the tank is suspected of having leaked as a result of evidence, including local
impacts, inventory records and/or tank test results; or
iii. during the tank closure, grossly contaminated media or groundwater containing
product-related contaminants are discovered, in which case, DER will make the determination whether
the tank has to be removed for a SC and/or to cleanup contaminated soil.
4. Deactivate or remove the tank and ancillary equipment, if feasible, in accordance with
applicable SCGs.
5. A tank closure report should be prepared following the format presented in section 5.8 for
a CCR, unless a SC is required in such case it may be included in the SCR.
1. A SC must be conducted of the tank area if any of the following situations is identified
during the tank closure:
ii. DER has made a determination in accordance with subparagraph (c)2.ii below;
iii. all tanks that require a site assessment tank closure by state or federal;
vi. the product stored in the tank is switched from a regulated substance to an
unregulated substance.
2. When a SC is being undertaken in conjunction with a tank closure: where the tank:
i. will be closed in place, the SC should be completed before the actual closure; or
ii. is to be removed, the SC should be performed during or after the tank closure.
3. For tank and pipe removals, the following field observations should be made and
documented during the SC:
(1) no groundwater in the excavation, discrete center line soil samples from the
bottom of the excavation are required as follows:
(A) at a frequency equal to the total length of the tank in feet divided by five
(minimum of one sample);
(B) samples are to be spaced equidistantly;
(C) the outermost samples obtained should be greater than 2.5 feet from
each respective end of the tank;
(D) if the total length of a tank in feet is not evenly divisible by five, one
additional sample should be obtained for any fraction remaining; and
(E) a minimum of one groundwater sample(s), using a DER approved
technique, must be taken within 25 feet hydraulically down gradient from the tanks that are not co-
located if the product stored is gasoline and groundwater is within 20 feet of the surface or otherwise
requested by DER.
(2) groundwater in the excavation and the contents of the UST have ever had a
density less than or equal to water, soil samples should be taken as follows:
(A) one sample biased based upon field screening to the suspected location
of greatest contamination should be taken near or above the water table from each excavation sidewall
for every 30 linear feet of sidewall (minimum of one sample per sidewall);
(B) for heating oil tanks of 550 gallon capacity or less, one sample biased to
the suspected location of greatest contamination may be taken from one excavation sidewall near or
Final DER-10 Page 163 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
below the water table and one at the bottom of the excavation;
(C) where seasonal fluctuations in the water table elevation can submerge
and smear product over a range of several feet, additional samples should be considered in this Asmear
zone@; and
(D) a sample of the water in the excavation should also be collected pursuant
to section 3.7;
(3) groundwater in the excavation and the contents of the UST had a density
greater than water, soil samples should be taken as follows:
(A) grab samples should be taken of the excavation at a depth from zero to
two feet beneath the tank in accordance with subclause 3.iii.(1) above, across the length of the
excavation;
(B) these samples should be field screened with an appropriate tool or test
kit;
(C) the four samples with the highest field screening results should be
submitted for the appropriate laboratory analysis; and
(D) A sample of the water in the excavation should also be collected
pursuant to section 3.7; and
(4) groundwater in the excavation and the contents of the UST consisted of mixed
substances, such that some contaminants had a specific gravity of more than one, and some
contaminants had a specific gravity of less than one (e.g., No. 6 fuel waste oil potentially contaminated
with chlorinated solvents). Samples in this case should be taken pursuant to both clauses (2) and (3)
above;
vi. in all cases, a description of product type and quantity spilled from a tank or tank
system during excavation.
(d) Tanks abandon in place. For a tank to be abandoned in place, the tank should be deactivated
Final DER-10 Page 164 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
pursuant to paragraph (b)3 and above must comply with the closure requirements of 6 NYCRR 613.9.
1. As part of the closure of a tank abandon in place, after it is cleaned of any residuals:
i. the tank should be inspected and any areas of questionable integrity including,
without limitation, any cracks or corrosion or evidence of discharge, should be documented.
Photographs should be submitted to document that the integrity of the system has not been breached, if
the evidence is clearly visible in the photograph;
ii. soil sampling should be conducted by completing borings through the bottom of the
tank, as follows:
(1) along the centerline, at a frequency equal to the total length of the tank
divided by five (minimum of one sample);
(2) the samples should be collected to a depth of 10 feet below the tank bottom, to
groundwater or bedrock;
(3) the samples should be spaced equidistantly with the outermost samples
obtained no greater than 2.5 feet from each respective end of the tank; and
(4) if the total length of a tank is not evenly divisible by five, one additional
sample should be obtained for any fraction remaining;
iii. if groundwater has been determined to be in contact with the tank , or if the product
stored is gasoline and groundwater is within 20 feet of the surface, and there is no evidence of a
discharge, sampling should be conducted in accordance with paragraph 3.9(a)4; and
iv. tank abandonment should comply with any state, federal and local laws, regulations
and ordinances.
(a) When an institutional control (IC) is required by the site decision document to restrict
activities on the site or protect the engineering controls and/or current and future users from
environmental contamination, the remedial party is responsible for ensuring that an IC is placed on the
site. The necessary process should commence during the remedial design phase so that the IC will be in
place in time to allow for timely approvals of submissions for which the IC is a prerequisite and to
otherwise avoid delaying project completion.
iii. limitation on site use that will be necessary based on the proposed remedial action.
3. Templates for the environmental easement and deed restriction are available on the DEC
website identified in the table of contents.
1. The easement will reference the SMP to be approved by DER and at a minimum:
iii. incorporate the SMP by reference, including a provision for future modifications to
addresses changes to the site management requirements; and
iv. set forth the requirements for the periodic certification that the institutional and
engineering controls for the site:
2. For an environmental easement to be executed by DEC, the remedial party must provide:
ii. a written commitment from a New York State-licensed title insurance company
indicating that it will issue the necessary title insurance policy, naming the state as an insured party,
upon the recording of the environmental easement;
Final DER-10 Page 166 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
iii. a metes and bounds description of the site differentiating areas of varying
restrictions, if any, required by the remedial program;
iv. a survey of the site, in a form approved by DEC and prepared by a New York State
licensed surveyor with current registration or an American Land Title Association (ALTA) standard
survey. The survey will:
(1) show the limits of the area of the site subject to the environmental easement
relative to the BCP site as identified by the executed brownfield cleanup agreement;
(2) delineate any areas within the site subject to the easement, with differing use
or other restrictions; and
(3) be presented so as to allow the metes and bounds description to be matched to
the survey;
vi. the property owner=s agreement to establish and maintain the easement in a form
which is expressly made enforceable by the state set out in such form as to be recordable pursuant to
Real Property Law Section 291; and
3. After DEC accepts the environmental easement and returns a fully executed document to
the remedial party, the remedial party will:
i. file the easement with the recorder of the county in which the site is located within
30 days of execution of the environmental easement by DEC;
ii. provide a copy of the recorded easement to the affected municipalities; and
iii. provide DEC with a copy of the easement, along with a certification by the
recording officer that it is a true and faithful copy and a certification that a copy has been provided to the
affected municipalities. The institutional control requirement is not fulfilled until this proof of filing is
received by DEC.
5. When the required EE cannot be obtained from the owner of the site, DER may elect to
execute and record an environmental notice, in accordance with subdivision (d)below, which will then
be included in the SMP for the site.
(c) Deed restriction. A deed restriction should identify the restrictions and requirements for the
use of the site as set forth in the SMP necessary to assure the continued protectiveness of the site
remedy.
iv. set forth the requirements for the periodic certification that the institutional and
engineering controls for the site:
2. After DEC accepts the deed restriction language, the remedial party will:
i. enter the restriction on the deed with the recording officer of the county in which
the site is located within 30 days of DEC approval; and
3. The deed restriction is to be in place prior to DER approval of the final engineering
report.
4. When the required deed restriction cannot be obtained from the owner of the site, DER
may elect to execute and record an environmental notice, in accordance with subdivision (d)below,
which will then be included in the SMP for the site.
(d) Environmental notice (EN). ENs are informational documents that may be filed with the
County Clerk or the Registrar in New York City (NYC). ENs may be used at the discretion of DEC,
when an environmental easement or deed restriction cannot be obtained from the owner of a site.
ii. a cleanup occurred at the property, to a level that restricts certain uses of all or part
of that property; and
iii. a SMP is available which contains requirements relative to the use of such property.
2. The property owner does not need to approve or sign the EN. DER prepares and records
the EN at the appropriate county clerk (or Registrar in NYC).
3. A receipt from the appropriate county clerk (or Registrar in NYC) which will typically
consist of a copy of the EN that is stamped with the book and page number in the upper right hand
corner of every page of the document including attachments or exhibits, indicating where and when the
EN is recorded DER will provide it to the remedial party for inclusion in the SMP.
Final DER-10 Page 168 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
(e) Templates of the institutional control documents, as well as additional information relative to
preparing and recording the institutional controls discussed in subdivisions (b) to (d) above are available
on DEC’s website identified in the table of contents.
(a) A projected schedule for the remedial action phase of the project, starting with the
procurement process for the construction contractor(s), must be developed prior to the start of
construction. This schedule may be required by the remedial design, the remedial action work plan
and/or the oversight agreement, as set forth in subdivision 1.2(b). The remedial action schedule should
be reviewed and revised during remedial construction, as discussed in paragraph 5.7(b)2 below.
vi. dates for finalization of the institutional controls (as described in section 5.6); and
vii. time lines and dates for the preparation and submission of the:
2. The remedial action schedule should identify those tasks, such as specific DER
approvals, that are prerequisite to subsequent tasks (sometimes referred to as critical path items).
3. The major assumptions reflected in the remedial action schedule, such as the amount of
time it will take for DER to review a given deliverable or how long it will take for a laboratory to turn
Final DER-10 Page 169 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
around analytical data and to validate the data, should be provided as a note or attachment to the
schedule.
4. The remedial action schedule must be consistent with any oversight document between
the remedial party and DEC. For example, a consent order may require remedial construction work to
start by a specified date. If this is the case, the remedial action schedule must adopt this milestone date
and all other prerequisite tasks must allow for compliance with this date.
5. The remedial action schedule should be reviewed and revised, during remedial
construction at a frequency acceptable to DER, as set forth in paragraph (b)2 below. For schedule
revisions:
i. the details and process for any schedule revisions should be as specified in the
oversight document, approved remedial design or approved RAWP; and
ii. the approved remedial action schedule can only be modified by approval of DER.
(b) Periodic progress reports should report on the progress of the remedial actions accomplished
during the reporting period and, at a minimum, discuss the items in this subdivision. Unless otherwise
set forth, progress reports must be submitted to DER monthly and as soon as practicable before the close
of the specified reporting period.
1. Any request for modifications to the approved remedial action work plan must be
identified in the progress report, along with the status of the requested modifications.
ii. a discussion of pending/planned significant project activities during the next two
months, unless another time frame is authorized;
iii. the approved remedial action schedule and proposed modifications to the remedial
action schedule, resulting from new information and/or unforeseen conditions;
iv. a discussion of any problems or delays in the implementation of the remedial action
relative to the work and/or the remedial action schedule;
v. proposed actions to correct any identified problems, including how to mitigate any
adverse schedule impacts; and
vi. any additional, pertinent documentation that is available (e.g., photographs) that
helps communicate progress/issues facing the project.
3. If required in a work plan, the following will be provided pursuant to section 3.3:
i. a tabulation of all sample results received during this period pursuant to paragraph
3.14(c)4 and submission of a report summarizing the data and presenting conclusions;
iii. a listing of all types and quantities of contamination generated by the remedial
action during the reporting period and to date, as well as the name of the disposal facilities, transporters'
dates of disposal and, if appropriate, the manifest numbers of each waste load.
(a) All remedial actions undertaken, including interim remedial actions, will be documented in
either a construction completion report (CCR) or the final engineering report (FER). These reports are
to be certified as set forth in section 1.5.
2. The FER is prepared to document implementation of the complete remedial program and
is a mandatory prerequisite to the issuance of a certificate of completion or closure letter. The FER also
includes the necessary FER certification for the remedial program provided in section 1.5. The scope of
the FER will vary depending on the manner in which the remedial program was implemented for a site,
as follows:
i. only for sites in the BCP, where the RI has resulted in a DEC determination that no
action is required, the FER will:
(1) describe the activities completed in accordance with the approved RI work
plan; and
(2) provide the FER certification for the remedial program;
ii. one or more IRM(s) were undertaken prior to the issuance of the decision document
for the site, which resulted in a DEC determination that no further action is required, the FER will:
iii. only a single remedial action was required to implement the remedy identified by a
decision document, the FER will:
iv. multiple IRMs, remedies for multiple operable units (OU) or multiple contracts
were undertaken to implement the remedial actions identified by one or more decision documents,
which together constitute the overall remedial program for a site, the FER will:
(1) summarize the results of all IRM and remedial action CCR(s);
(2) where more than one OU is involved, the FER must identify each OU and
describe how the overall remedial program for the site, including any interim remedial measures, has
addressed the OU;
(3) provide all data and information describing the final remedial action
implemented in accordance with subdivision (b) below;
(4) include data and figures identifying where contamination remains at the site
that needs to be addressed in the SMP;
(5) describe any institutional controls required, including mechanisms to
implement, maintain, monitor and enforce such controls;
(6) identify the site boundaries and include by reference the SMP; and
(7) provide the FER certification for the remedial program; and
3. The SMP must be approved and the environmental easement or deed restriction executed
prior to DER approval of an FER.
(b) CCR/FER requirements. A CCR, or that portion of the FER which documents the final
remedial action at the site, must describe the activities completed in accordance with the approved
remedial design or remedial action work plan, in addition to providing the data to support the
construction activities completed and a discussion of the items identified below. The FER and CCR are
to address the items noted below and be prepared in a format based on available templates on the DEC
website identified in the table of contents.
1. A final CCR or FER submitted to DER for approval is to be prepared, stamped, certified
and signed by an individual licensed or otherwise authorized in accordance with article 145 of the
Education Law to practice the profession of engineering using the appropriate certification provided in
Table 1.5.
iv. a listing of the waste streams, quantity of materials disposed and facility where such
materials were disposed;
5. Tables and figures pursuant to section 3.14 (Remedial Investigation Report) containing
all pre- and post-remedial data keyed appropriately so that completion of the remedial action is
documented. The figures should clearly indicate the volume of contaminated soil or sediment which was
remediated, as well as contamination remaining at the site to be managed by the SMP.
7. A detailed report of actual costs including bid tabulations and change orders, if any state
funding is provided.
8. "As-built" drawings bearing a NYS professional engineer=s stamp and signature on each
drawing should be provided, which include:
ii. all soil removals, indicating the surveyed limits of the excavation and location of all
final documentation samples;
iii. all underground storage tank removals. A site plan showing the location, including
GPS level of accuracy for latitude and longitude, of the tanks removed or abandoned in place and the
extent of any soil removal as per subparagraph ii above; and
iv. any permanent survey markers for horizontal and vertical control needed for site
management are to be shown on a site survey prepared by a NYS licensed land surveyor and include
with the “as builts”.
9. Identification of the applicable institutional controls employed along with a copy of the
environmental easement or other institutional controls that apply.
(c) The following documentation, as applicable to the project, is to be submitted with the CCR or
FER. This information is to be included by reference and provided as an ESD, in accordance with
section 1.15, and is not to be included as an attachment or appendix to the CCR or FER.
1. All fully executed manifests documenting any off-site transport of waste material.
2. The approved SMP for the project which is the subject of the report.
3. Results of all analyses, including laboratory data sheets and the required laboratory data
deliverables pursuant to sections 2.2 and 2.3 and Appendix 2B.
(d) Additional FER requirements. In addition to complying with the CCR as set forth in
subdivision (a) above, an FER must also include the documentation for the remedial program necessary
to support the certification requirements of the FER. The certifications are discussed in this subdivision,
and the required certification language is provided in section 1.5.
1. For those sites where the decision document for the site, remedial work plan or other
document identifies such a time frame, the following certification is to be made: AThe data submitted
demonstrates that the remediation requirements set forth in the decision document for the site have been,
or will be, achieved in accordance with the time frames, if any, in the decision document, or any
subsequently approved work plans@. Where this certification applies, the FER must identify the
applicable time frame, the data evaluated and discuss how the data supports this certification.
ii. document that any institutional controls, engineering controls and/or any operation
and maintenance requirements applicable to the site are contained in an environmental easement created
and recorded pursuant to ECL 71-3605 or any other DEC-approved process, and that any affected local
governments, as defined in ECL 71-3603, have been notified that such easement has been recorded@; and
4. For all sites where financial assurance is required, describe the financial assurance
mechanisms.
(e) Certificate of completion (COC). Upon approval of the FER, DEC will issue a COC for the
remedial programs identified by paragraphs 1.2(a)1 through 3.
1. Issuance of the COC initiates the site management phase of the remedial program, which
proceeds in accordance with the approved SMP developed in accordance with section 6.2.
2. The first periodic review of the site, as set forth in paragraph 6.3(a)1 will be due within
Final DER-10 Page 174 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
18 months of the issuance of the COC.
3. The schedule for the second and subsequent periodic reviews will be set by DER on a
site-specific basis, in accordance with 6 NYCRR 375-1.8(h)(3), as part of the approval of the periodic
review.
(f) Closure letters. Upon approval of the FER, DEC will issue a closure letter for the remedial
programs identified by paragraphs 1.2(a)4 through 6. A closure letter may be in the form of a no further
action determination, a release and covenant not to sue letter or such other letter indicating a remedial
party has satisfied the requirements of the applicable oversight document.
1. Issuance of the closure letter initiates the site management phase of the remedial
program, which proceeds in accordance with the approved SMP developed in accordance with section
6.2.
2. The first periodic review of the site, as set forth in paragraph 6.3(a)1, will be due within
18 months of the issuance of the closure letter
3. The schedule for the second and subsequent periodic reviews will be set by DER on a
site-specific basis, in accordance with 6 NYCRR 375-1.8(h)(3), as part of the approval of the periodic
review.
(g) Electronic submissions. The CCR/FER and all other required reports and/or documentation
identified by this section must be provided in an electronic format in accordance with section 1.15.
(a) Site management overview. Site management is the last phase of a remedial program, which
begins with the issuance of the COC or closure letter. The purpose of site management is to ensure the
safe reuse of properties where contamination will remain in place and is accomplished as outlined by
this overview. The success of such use-based cleanups depends on effective site management.
1. Use-based remedies rely on institutional controls (ICs) and engineering controls (ECs)
identified as a component of the remedial program. When an EC is required, there will always be a
corresponding IC; however an IC (e.g., a groundwater use restriction) does not require a corresponding
EC.
2. IC/ECs are implemented by a SMP, developed in accordance with section 6.2, to ensure
that the use of the site does not disturb any remaining contamination or the required engineering controls
or otherwise compromise the protectiveness of the use-based site remedy.
3. A site will have only one SMP which will encompass all site management activities
identified by the remedy or remedies (including IRMs) selected for the site. The only exception would
be a BCP site remedial program implemented by a volunteer, where off-site contamination has been
determined to represent a significant threat as set forth in 6 NYCRR 375-3.7. For such sites, two SMPs
may be applicable:
i. one SMP will address the site management for the on-site remedial program which
was completed under the BCP for which the volunteer is responsible; and
ii. a second SMP will address the site management for the off-site remedial program
which was implemented either by a responsible party or DER under the SSF.
4. For those sites where the remedial party is not the site owner, both parties can be jointly
responsible for ensuring that all site management responsibilities identified in the SMP, environmental
easement or deed restriction and the oversight document are performed.
5. Guidance is provided for the design, periodic review and discontinuance (closeout) of the
SM phase, which includes:
iv. periodic review and reporting of the implementation of the SMP, including the
IC/EC certification and any corrective actions (section 6.3);
Final DER-10 Page 177 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
v. termination of treatment system operations (section 6.4); and
vi. completion of the remedial program and closeout of the site (section 6.5).
(b) Interim site management. Monitoring or operation and maintenance activities may need to
begin with the completion of an IRM or an operable unit remedy, the COC or closure letter has not yet
been issued for the site. For these sites, interim site management in accordance with this subdivision is
required.
i. comply with the applicable provisions of subdivision 6.2.1(b) for any necessary
plans, including a HASP and CAMP;
iii. if required, report on the interim SM in accordance with subdivision 6.3(b); and
iv. include applicable excerpts from manufacturer catalogs which describe the
equipment, specifications, operation and maintenance procedures, etc. (e.g., equipment catalog-cuts).
2. All applicable interim plans developed in accordance with this subdivision will be
incorporated into the SMP upon completion of the remedial program, where any requirement of the
interim plan is still required.
3. Periodic reviews and the IC/EC certification, in accordance with section 6.3, will not be
required until the COC or closure letter is issued.
4. Exemption to the need for an interim SMP. An interim SMP will not be required where a
SMP is not required, in accordance with paragraph 6.2(a)3.
(c) Implementing the SMP. As appropriate for the site remedial program, implementation of the
SMP should include the activities described below which are necessary for the proper and effective
management of the remedial program.
1. Inspection. Inspections of the site must be conducted to assure the remedy remains in
place and effective. Inspections by the person responsible for the site management should:
i. occur at a frequency set forth in the SMP with inspection reports submitted with the
PRR, as noted in paragraph 6.3(b)10, unless:
iii. be documented on an inspection form developed for the site, to compile sufficient
information to document an assessment of compliance with the SMP, including but not limited to:
2. Reporting. The results of all inspections and evaluations for the reporting period
identified for the site will be reported in the PRR, with the associated inspection forms provided as an
electronic submission in the EDS provided with the PRR.
(d) Site management related notices. In addition to the notice requirements identified in section
1.4, during site management the remedial party or the site owner is also to provide notice to DEC as set
forth in this subdivision.
ii. responsible for providing the PRR for the site; and
2. At least 60 days in advance of a change in the ownership of the site, which constitutes a
change in the use of the site pursuant to 6 NYCRR 375-1.11(d) and subdivision 1.4(b) of this guidance,
for sites in the programs identified by paragraphs 1.2(a) 1 through 3.
ii. if it is not an emergency situation, within five business days of the inspection.
Final DER-10 Page 179 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
4. In addition to the scheduled inspections or periodic reporting requirements, if at any time
during the reporting period the remedial party identifies the failures of one or more of the engineering
controls or non-compliance with one or more of the institutional controls, the remedial party must:
ii. identify and implement corrective measures in accordance with paragraphs 6.3(a) 6
and 7; and
iii. provide a periodic certification in accordance with the requirements of section 6.3,
for the period established by DER in the approval of the corrective measures.
(e) Electronic submissions. The all required plans, notices, reports and/or documentation
identified by this section must be provided in an electronic format in accordance with section 1.15.
(a) Site management plan. Except as provided in paragraph 3 below, a site-specific SMP
developed in accordance with this subdivision is required at all sites upon completion of the final
remedial action unless the site remedy requires no restrictions. The SMP should provide a general
description of the site, the controls in-place as well as a description of the nature and extent of the
remaining contamination at the site. Available SMP template will be on the DEC website identified in
the table of contents.
2. The SMP will include, as required for the site remedy, up to three separate plans
summarized as follows:
i. institutional and engineering control (IEC) plan. The IEC plan is described in
subsection 6.2.1 and is required in every SMP;
ii. monitoring plan. The monitoring plan is described in subsection 6.2.2. This plan is
required when it is necessary to monitor and report the performance and/or effectiveness of the remedy;
and
iii. operation and maintenance plan. The operation and maintenance (O&M) plan is
described in subsection 6.2.3. This plan is required where the remedial program includes the operation
and maintenance of a component of the remedy.
3. Exemption to the SMP requirements. For sites where the remedial program is limited in
scope, the SMP may be limited to the level of detail equivalent to an interim SMP, as set forth in
subdivision 6.1(b). Sites subject to this exemption are those where the remedial program was limited to:
ii. for soil vapor intrusion monitoring, or the operation, maintenance and monitoring of
Final DER-10 Page 180 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
sub-slab soil vapor mitigation and/or point-of-entry treatment (POET) systems on private wells when
such systems or monitoring are the only activity undertaken as an IRM. Should other IRMs or another
operable unit of the site require an interim SMP, the vapor intrusion monitoring or the operation,
maintenance and monitoring of sub-slab mitigation and/or point-of-entry treatment (POET) systems will
be included in that interim SMP; or
iii. sites where any elements of site management will be satisfied within 18 months of
the start of site management and institutional controls, if any, will also be terminated in this time frame.
Should the need for site management extend beyond 18 months, an SMP in accordance with paragraphs
1 and 2 above will be required by DER.
(b) The SMP will be modified to reflect changes or deletions approved by DER in accordance
with paragraph 6.3(a)5.
(c) Electronic submissions. The SMP and all other required reports and/or documentation
identified by this section must be provided in an electronic format in accordance with section 1.15.
(a) An institutional control and engineering control (IEC) plan is required for all sites for which
the remedy does not allow for unrestricted use.
1. The IEC plan details the steps and media-specific requirements necessary to assure the
institutional and/or engineering controls remain in place and effective. This plan should include:
ii. the steps necessary for the periodic certification of the institutional and/or
engineering controls;
iv. any other provisions necessary to identify or establish methods for implementing
the institutional and/or engineering controls required by the site remedy; and
2. The plan should identify those items to be evaluated in order for the IC/EC certification
identified in subdivisions (b) and(c) below to be made.
3. The IC/EC plan should identify areas of the site where contamination remains to be
manage by the SMP.
(b) The IC/EC plan should include the applicable plans identified by this subdivision.
1. Excavation plan. An excavation plan is necessary where the remedial program for a site
or area of a site does not achieve a soil cleanup which allows for, at a minimum, residential use of the
Final DER-10 Page 181 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
site. This plan should include provisions for the:
ii. handling and quality of the fill brought to the site, for use below the soil cover/site
cap or for use above, or as part of, the cover/cap [see subdivision 5.4(e)];
iii. handling of soil removed from the site [see subdivision 5.4(f)];
vi. health and safety procedures that comply with 29 CFR 1910.120 and subdivision
1.9 (c) and a CAMP are to be followed for all excavations or other activities at the site which may
encounter remaining contamination; and
vii. remedial party and/or site owner to provide notification to DER, in accordance with
subdivision 1.4(c).
2. Media-specific plans. Media-specific implementation plans including, but not limited to,
plans for:
i. fill which is brought to the site for use above the cap during (re)development or use
of the site, to be in accordance with subdivision 5.4(e);
3. Remedy-specific plans. Plans for the installation, inspection and maintenance of a final
cap, cover system or other engineering controls.
4. Health and safety plan (HASP) and Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP). A
summary of the requirements for the development of a HASP as set forth in subdivision 1.9 (c), the
CAMP as set forth in Appendices 1A and 1B and an identification of areas of the site where these plans
will be required, should be included in the IC/EC plan. Site management activities where a
HASP/CAMP will be necessary include:
iii. implementation of elements of the monitoring plan [see subsection 6.2.2]; and/or
iv. operation and maintenance pursuant to the O&M plan [see subsection 6.2.3].
5. Other plans. As appropriate for the site management of the site, plans to manage unique
site-specific human health or environmental exposure impacts identified by the remedy.
(c) Property transfer provisions. The IC/EC plan must identify the provisions for transfer of site
management responsibilities upon property transfer, including the notifications required by subdivision
6.1(d) and 6 NYCRR 375-1.11(d).
1. These provisions will include the requirement that the following site management related
documentation, up to the point of transfer, be provided to the new owner:
i. a copy of the approved SMP with any updates;
iii. the IC/EC certification, provided by DER to be completed for the next scheduled
periodic review.
3. The date of the change of use notification to DER, and the date of the document transfer
to the new owner are to be reported in the PRR for the review period in which the transfer occurs. It
must be noted that this PRR reporting requirement does not satisfy the requirement for a notice of
transfer of the certificate of completion for a BCP site, in accordance with 6 NYCRR 375-1.9(f).
(a) General. The monitoring plan describes the measures for monitoring the performance and
effectiveness of the remedy at a site. The monitoring plan will vary depending on the type of site,
monitoring needs, site location and components of the remedy. The plan should include provisions for
the evaluation of site information periodically, to confirm that the remedy continues to be effective for
the protection of public health and the environment.
1. The monitoring plan should be designed to assess the performance and effectiveness of
the remedy in meeting the objectives identified the remedial program and otherwise complying with
applicable SCGs. The monitoring plan should also detail the steps necessary to inspect, monitor and
report this performance and effectiveness. The plan should identify the requirements for:
i. assessing compliance with any discharge limits established for the site by a permit
or permit equivalent;
Final DER-10 Page 183 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
ii. assessing whether the remedial treatment components, if any, are achieving their
performance criteria;
iv. evaluating site information periodically, to confirm that the remedy continues to be
effective protecting public health and the environment;
2. For specific remedies, as described in paragraphs (c) 3 through 6 below, the plan may
also need to include provision for:
3. A monitoring plan may not be required for those remediation sites defined in paragraph
6.2(a)3. However, any wells to be monitored for such sites will require analytical results for the
contaminants of concern for two sampling events not more than nine months apart, one event during a
high groundwater period and one event during a dry period.
(b) Performance monitoring. Performance monitoring is the regular assessment of physical and
chemical parameters to determine whether the remedy is performing as designed. Performance
monitoring is typically associated with remedies with active treatment systems.
iii. measuring static water elevations in wells, to determine groundwater flow paths and
to evaluate the performance of in-ground containment or groundwater control structures (e.g., funnel-
and-gate system);
iv. measuring parameters to gauge the effectiveness of the collection, mitigation and/or
treatment of contaminants (e.g., maintaining a negative pressure under a building, positive pressure
within a building, recovering sparged air or achieving the designed groundwater capture zone);
2. Should DER approve the decommissioning or shut-off of any operating system at a site,
the performance monitoring of the system is discontinued and deleted from the monitoring plan and/or
SMP once the system is decommissioned or permanently shut off.
(c) Effectiveness monitoring. Effectiveness monitoring is the periodic chemical and physical
analysis of media of concern to determine and/or confirm that the remedial action objectives are being
achieved when compared to data obtained from the investigation, implementation and previous
monitoring of the remedy. The remedial design should have identified those aspects of the remedy for
which baseline (pre-remediation) conditions and/or for which reference station data (often related to
tracking any trends in groundwater, sediment and/or biota) are needed. Effectiveness monitoring
requirements for various media are provided in this subdivision.
i. a network of wells should be designed and monitored over time to assess up-
gradient, on-site and down-gradient conditions in the vicinity of the site. The design of the well network
may require vertical profiling to determine proper vertical placement, number and length of the screened
intervals;
ii. the network of wells is to provide adequate and effective collection points for
samples and include all areas of concern, at various depths if appropriate;
iv. analysis of groundwater samples must include the contaminants of concern that are
relevant to the performance.
2. Effectiveness monitoring requirements for surface water, soil, sediment, soil vapor and
biota. Monitoring requirements for each of these media should be established on a case-by-case basis.
Generally, where biota sampling/monitoring is to be included, baseline monitoring data both on-site and
at a reference station are needed. Remedy implementation should not be delayed to gather additional
baseline data.
(1) monitoring wells should be placed along the plume and in its projected path
based on vertical and horizontal profiling, three dimensional modeling, proximity to sensitive receptors
and professional judgment;
(2) multi-level groundwater data should be collected at various locations and
depths to track the plume and bracket it vertically; and
(3) data from all monitoring points should be used to calibrate the predictive
model to ensure that it truly describes the contaminant plume and to validate the protection of sensitive
receptors;
(1) at least one well or well cluster in the source area to monitor contaminant
concentrations and determine vertical hydraulic gradients;
(2) at least one well or well cluster located down gradient of the source area along
the centerline of the plume screened to bracket the plume vertically;
(3) at least one plume fringe monitoring well located at the limit of the plume.
The plume limit is defined as an area where contaminant concentrations are below applicable SCGs.
This well should be screened spanning the projected depth of greatest concentration based on the
observed vertical gradient;
(4) at least one sentinel well or well cluster located beyond the zone of
groundwater exceeding applicable SCGs screened across the projected depth of contamination. The
sentinel well should be located no closer than three years= travel time of groundwater to the nearest
potential downgradient receptor and no further than five years= travel time from the delineated
downgradient extent of the contaminant plume;
(5) additional monitoring wells may either be pre-installed along the centerline of
the projected plume or immediately (within two weeks) after contaminants are first detected in the
downgradient sentinel. The time difference between the projected and observed first detection of
contaminant should be used to refine the predictive model. The down gradient distances to successive
wells will be adjusted based on the degree of predictive success; and
(6) as the plume moves toward its discharge point, the sampling frequency of
upgradient wells may be reduced based upon suitable trend line analysis and higher confidence in the
predictive model. Once the plume reaches its discharge point, the monitoring well network may be
further scaled back depending on site-specific assurance requirements;
iii. a provision that should the plume reach apparent stability before its point of
discharge, the use of MNA in accordance with paragraph 6.2.2(c)3 can be evaluated, as an alternative
remedy; and
iv. soil vapor monitoring, as set forth in the most recent NYSDOH guidance document
should be used as appropriate.
5. Fish and wildlife resource monitoring requirements. For sites or areas of concern
involving impacts to fish and wildlife resources, monitoring may be required after implementation of the
Final DER-10 Page 186 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
remedy, to evaluate physical, chemical and biological conditions resulting from the initial
implementation of the remedy, in addition to monitoring the long-term effectiveness of the remedy.
Where applicable, fish and wildlife resource monitoring should include monitoring of:
(1) inspection of wetland or other plants installed during site restoration to ensure
acceptable growth and survival and for removal of invasive species. Restorative plants which do not
meet specified parameters must be replaced. For wetland restorations, a five-year monitoring and
replacement period should be included in the monitoring plan;
(2) inspection of stream-bank stabilization measures to ensure proper function
after completion of the remedy. Any erosion or slumping of the bank or loss of erosion-control
vegetation should be addressed immediately by repair or replacement; and
(3) monitoring of water levels and vegetation in wetlands or water bodies where
hydrological conditions were altered as a result of construction; and
(1) collection and analysis of fish or other biological tissue to document reduction
of contaminant concentrations in the resource;
(2) monitoring macrobenthic populations or other environmental indicators to
determine that an unimpacted habitat condition has been achieved or is being maintained;
(3) conducting toxicity testing of soil, sediments or surface waters to determine
that a nontoxic condition has been achieved or is being maintained; and
(4) post-remedial observation of the health or behavior of endangered, threatened
or special-concern species or rare ecological communities or other populations of concern previously
identified at or near the site, to document that there are no lasting effects due to construction activities.
i. include sampling and analysis to define a trend in groundwater, which may require
a minimum of four (4) seasonal sampling events and four (4) synoptic water level measurement events
of the same wells where statistical confidence is required;
ii. consider if it may be appropriate to sample every fifth quarter, upon approval from
DER, where a site has been sampled quarterly for two years and the results do not show any significant
contamination or changing trends. This change may allow the remedial party or site owner to evaluate
the results of approximately annual sampling with the benefit of evaluating possible seasonal variations;
iii. plot and evaluate the analytical results to identify any trend in conditions and/or to
illustrate that remedial action objectives have been met;
iv. consider sampling to establish a trend in surface water, soil, sediment, soil vapor
and/or biota. For some sites, a statistical analysis of the data may be considered to establish or verify a
Final DER-10 Page 187 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
trend. Where required, any statistical analysis should be data-specific and the method used is to be
approved by DER prior to data analysis; and
(d) Monitoring work plan. The monitoring plan section of the SMP should include a work plan of
a level of detail sufficient to gather the information required for the performance and effectiveness
monitoring appropriate for any media to be sampled as part of site management.
vi. process for reporting and addressing migration of contaminants to sentinel wells or
other compliance monitoring points;
vii. protocols for modifying the plan by expanding or removing monitoring points; and
viii. protocols for determining when or if, the required monitoring of media subject to
the plan may be terminated.
(1) when DER determines they are no longer necessary for monitoring the
remedy; and
(2) in accordance with the procedures set forth in the applicable guidance, CP-43,
Commissioner Policy on Groundwater Monitoring Well Decommissioning.
(a) General. The operation and maintenance (O&M) plan of the SMP is applicable when it is
necessary to operate and maintain any mechanical or physical components of the remedial program.
Such components of the remedial program include: air, groundwater, soil and/or water treatment
systems; groundwater or leachate collection and/or extraction systems; gas venting/treatment systems
and soil vapor intrusion mitigation measures or other components of the remedial system, including
engineered caps and soil covers.
1. An O&M plan:
i. should be developed in accordance with the work plan required by sections 5.2 or
5.3 during the implementation of the remedy; and
ii. may include an O&M manual if proposed by the remedial party/site owner, or
required by DER, in accordance with paragraph 3 below, for use by the operator of the treatment,
containment, collection or recovery system required by the site remedy. This is generally used where
there are complex remedial components.
3. DER may require an O&M manual be developed for a site in the following cases:
ii. if a significant number of the documents identified in subparagraph (a)2.v above are
necessary for the operation and/or maintenance of equipment located at the site; or
iii. where DER determines a contingency plan is necessary which describes procedures
to be conducted in the event of an emergency (e.g., a fire, spill, tank, drum overflow or rupture, severe
weather or vandalism) to protect and/or maintain the operation of the remedy.
4. A HASP for the O&M plan is required as identified in paragraph 6.2.1(b)4 and is to be
prepared in accordance with subdivision 1.9(c).
(b) O&M plan closeout. When DER determines that element(s) of the remedial program which
require the implementation of the O&M plan are no longer required, the SMP can be revised to
eliminate the O&M plan.
(a) Periodic review. Site management activities will be reported, and the necessary IC/EC
certification will be provided on a periodic basis, in a periodic review report (PRR) prepared in
accordance with subdivision (b) below.
1. The initial periodic review will be conducted no more than 18 months after issuance of
the certificate of completion or closure letter.
3. Only one IC/EC certification is to be filed per site. If the site comprises multiple
properties or parcels and/or multiple owners, the remedial parties/owners shall arrange for one PRR and
one certification.
4. Evaluation of records and reporting. The PRR is to provide the information necessary to
document the basis for the IC/EC certification. To the extent applicable, the site monitoring data, as well
as results of the inspections, should be evaluated as part of the periodic review to confirm that:
iii. operation and maintenance activities are being conducted properly; and
iv. based on this review, the remedy continues to be protective of public health and the
environment and is compliant with the decision document.
5. Recommendations for the continued need for an EC or IC. The periodic review should
evaluate the data gathered to determine whether all ECs and/or ICs identified for the site remain
necessary for the continued effectiveness and protectiveness of the remedy. Such changes can only be
requested and approved in the context of a periodic review, as follows:
ii. if the recommendation is accepted by DER, the next IC/EC certification will be
modified to reflect the accepted change; and
iii. if accepted by DER, the SMP is to be updated by the addition of an errata sheet(s)
to reflect the change, the reason for the change and the date of DER’s acceptance.
ii. a work plan to implement corrective measures necessary to enable the certification
to be made; and
iii. a schedule for implementing the DER-approved corrective measures work plan and
for submission of the revised PRR with the required certification.
(b) Periodic review report. A PRR is to be prepared for the certification period which summarizes
compliance with the SMP, i.e., the IC/EC, monitoring and O&M plans, based on the inspections in
conducted in accordance with paragraph 6.1(c)1 and the periodic review detailed in subdivision (a)
Final DER-10 Page 191 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
above.
1. The PRR is to be submitted at least 45 days prior to the date of the end of the certification
period, as determined by DER, and is to include the required IC/EC certification.
2. The PRR must summarize and document an evaluation of all site-related data to support
the required elements of the certification identified by subdivision (d) below, and include:
i. the performance and effectiveness of the remedy, including of all treatment units,
etc., including identification of any needed repairs or modifications;
ii. any new conclusions or observations regarding the site contamination based on
inspections or data generated by the implementation of the site monitoring plan for the media being
monitored; and
iii. recommendations regarding any necessary changes to the remedy and/or monitoring
or O&M plans.
3. Where applicable, the PRR must summarize the data and/or information collected in
compliance with the following:
i. any discharge monitoring data for the certification period with relevant comments
and conclusions:
(1) for a SPDES or air permit, reports are to be submitted to DER as stated in the
permit requirements, or
(2) if a permit was not required, equivalent discharge monitoring reports are to be
submitted to DER;
4. Where the O&M plan identifies the need for monthly, quarterly or biannual reports of
performance monitoring, the PRR should include and summarize the following:
(1) number of days the system was run for the reporting period, or percentage of
run time for the reporting period if the system is to operate continuously;
(2) volume processed per time period and the cumulative total processed for the
reporting period; and
(3) average, high and low flows per day;
Final DER-10 Page 192 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
ii. the mass of contaminants removed, or removed by each system (e.g., SVE systems,
air-sparging systems, or groundwater treatment systems);
iv. a description of breakdowns and/or repairs, with an explanation for any significant
downtime;
viii. all field data (e.g., vacuum and pressure readings, PID readings).
i. sampling and well locations, with tabulated significant analytical values at sampling
locations, where effectiveness monitoring is performed;
6. A PRR must document a change of use, as set forth in paragraph 6.2.1(c)2 and/or a
property transfer, as set forth in subdivision 6.2.1(c)
7. A PRR should include any recommendations for modification to the ECs or ICs as set
forth in paragraph (a)5 above.
8. The PRR must include cumulative data summary tables and/or graphical representations
of contaminants of concern, as follows:
i. include a general listing of all compounds analyzed for, along with the applicable
standards; and
ii. provide by sampling point, only those compounds detected, with the minimum
reporting and detection limits noted.
9. The results of all analyses, copies of all laboratory data sheets and the required
laboratory data deliverables, pursuant to sections 2.2 and 2.3 and Appendix 2B, must be submitted
electronically upon the request of DER. This backup data is not to be included in the PRR or as an
appendix to the PRR.
10. All inspection reports generated during the period are to be provided electronically.
(c) Person providing the IC/EC certification. The PRR documents the basis for the person
identified by this subdivision to provide the necessary IC/EC certification for the site.
1. The person responsible for preparing and certifying a PRR can be a qualified
environmental professional (QEP), as defined in paragraph 1.3(b)49, unless:
2. When the engineering controls and/or monitoring components of a remedy are no longer
required and the certification relates solely to land or groundwater use restrictions, the certification may
be made by a QEP or, alternatively, the site property owner may certify in instances where the
certification relates solely to land or groundwater use restrictions.
(d) The institutional control and engineering control (IC/EC) certification for a site is provided in
the PRR. The certification is made after an evaluation of the ability of the plans developed in accordance
with section 6.2 to maintain the continued effectiveness of the institutional and/or engineering controls
for the site.
2. The IC/EC certification must identify any IC/ECs required by the remedy and certify
that:
i. any inspection of the site to confirm the effectiveness of the institutional controls
and/or applicable engineering controls required by the remedial program was performed under the
direction of the person making the certification;
ii. the IC/ECs employed are unchanged from the previous certification and:
iii. nothing has occurred that would constitute a violation or failure to comply with any
SMP for such controls;
v. the PRR and all attachments (or the inspections/evaluations necessary to make this
certification) were prepared under the direction of, and reviewed by, the person making the certification;
vi. to the best of their knowledge and belief, the work and conclusions described in the
certification are in accordance with the requirements of the site remedial program; and
3. For a site where a financial assurance mechanism is required, the PRR should include an
evaluation of the mechanism to assure that it remains valid and sufficient for its intended purpose, to
support the certification provide in paragraph 1.5(b)5.
4. For BCP sites that DER has determined do not constitute a significant threat but where
contaminants in groundwater contravene drinking water standards at the site border, in accordance with
6 NYCRR 375-3.8(h)2, the PRR will also evaluate groundwater conditions. The IC/EC certification for
such sites will also:
i. certify that no new information has come to the remedial party/site owner`s
attention, since the last certification, to indicate that the assumptions made in the qualitative exposure
assessment of offsite contamination are no longer valid. This includes data from groundwater
monitoring wells located at the site boundary if any; and
ii. every five years, in addition to certifying the information in subparagraph i above,
also certify that the assumptions made in the qualitative exposure assessment remain valid.
5. When IC’s and EC’s are no longer necessary, DEC may terminate the need to provide the
certification in paragraph 4 above:
i. upon a request in writing to DEC with documentation to support such request; and
ii. after notice to the site contact list and a public comment period of 30 days.
(a) A remedial process is considered completed when effectiveness monitoring indicates that the
remedy has achieved the remedial action objectives identified by the decision document. When this
occurs, the remedial party or site owner may by the submission of a PRR, in accordance with paragraph
6.3(a)5, propose that a treatment system be shut down and/or monitoring of a groundwater and/or soil
vapor plume can be terminated.
2. Dependent on site-specific considerations, site closure may be initiated before the SCGs
have been met, with prior DER approval, when it can be demonstrated, as appropriate for the site
contaminants that:
i. the remedy has achieved the bulk reduction of groundwater contamination, as set
forth in subdivision 4.1(d); and
iii. in no case should site closure be considered if the site remains a threat to public
health and the environment or it will create a public health exposure or environmental impact, unless the
human exposure or environmental impact can be mitigated by another means.
3. Remedial process closure requirements are included in this section for the following:
4. Mitigation or monitoring actions associated with soil vapor intrusion (e.g., sub-slab
depressurization systems) may also be undertaken in accordance with the or the most recent NYSDOH
guidance document, Guidance for Evaluating Soil Vapor Intrusion in the State of New York (October
2006) or the most current version with appropriate updates.
5. Closure of one element of the remedial program does not relieve the remedial party or
site owner of its obligations to continue site management for other engineering and/or institutional
controls, or other SMP obligations.
(b) Shutdown of groundwater treatment systems. A groundwater treatment system can be shut
down when it is determined that the RAOs have been met, or that continued operation of a remedial
treatment system is no longer effective and the system has achieved a bulk reduction in contamination.
Groundwater treatment systems addressed in this subdivision include both systems designed to treat
contaminated groundwater and systems to treat soil contamination which is the source of groundwater
contamination (see clause (b)2.ii.(2) below).
2. Shutdown of a system with no specified shutdown criteria. If the remedy has not
incorporated specific shutdown criteria for the remedial system, the following methodology is
recommended to evaluate whether permanent system shut down conditions have been reached, as
follows when:
i. operational data indicates that a remedial system has reached asymptotic removal
rates, as discussed in paragraph 1 above, the system should be pulsed (i.e., cycled on and off) for a
specified period. Additional data is to be collected to evaluate how the period of inactivity has impacted
contaminant concentrations [for example, how does the data compare to pre-shut down conditions, and
how did the system react when restarted?]:
ii. the mass of contaminant(s) extracted over time and the groundwater monitoring
data are graphically recorded to illustrate the effectiveness of system operation and the influence of
pulsing on the system:
(1) a minimum of eight groundwater approved data sets are typically necessary to
statistically demonstrate within 95% confidence limits that asymptotic conditions have been reached.
Alternative non-parametric statistical tests may be proposed. DER will determine the acceptability of
such tests on a case-by-case basis; and
(2) generally, a system treating soil impacting groundwater will not be shut down
until:
(A) the contaminant levels in soil samples are near or below the soil cleanup
objectives for the protection of groundwater;
(B) groundwater standards have been met at the property line(s); and
(C) contamination levels beyond the site property boundary(s) will no longer
be at levels which threaten public health and the environment;
iii. when system performance has reached asymptotic conditions, in accordance with
subparagraphs i and ii above, soil samples are to be collected from borings or test pits placed at the
source area and/or the property boundaries, as approved by DER, and compared to applicable soil clean-
up levels; and
3. Request for shutdown of a remedial system. The remedial party or site owner may
request approval from DER prior to the shut down all or a portion of a remedial treatment system. A
request to shut down a system:
ii. when undertaking studies to support such report in accordance with subparagraph i
above:
(1) DER is to be notified when sampling of the media subject to treatment will
occur, with DER provided the opportunity to obtain (a) duplicate sample(s) for independent analysis;
and
(2) approval for a permanent system shutdown will only be provided when DER
has determined that shutdown conditions have been demonstrated.
(c) Monitored Natural Attenuation. The determination that MNA will achieve the remedial goals
for the site in a manner that is fully protective of all identified receptors, and that monitoring can be
terminated, is to be made in accordance with this subdivision.
iii. contaminant levels for individual contaminants are not decreasing in monitoring
well(s) in any area of concern identified for the site; or
2. Proposals to sample the monitoring wells at a decreased frequency for the purpose of
monitoring the effectiveness of the remedy may be included in the PRR, in accordance with paragraph
6.3(a)5, and will be considered by DER where:
i. contaminant levels in the sentinel well do not exceed the applicable RAOs at any
time during the monitoring program;
ii. contaminant levels detected in the plume or monitoring wells at the edge of the
plume are reflective of the contaminant levels predicted by the groundwater flow/contaminant transport
model;
iii. contaminant levels above the applicable RAOs remain, but a decreasing trend in the
levels is demonstrated in the area of concern monitoring well(s). The decreasing trend should be
demonstrated by a DER-approved statistical evaluation which should be applied to each of the
individual contaminants detected in each monitoring well; and
iv. groundwater sample data is not averaged for the purpose of statistical validation.
3. Proposals for no further monitoring of the groundwater, may be included in the PRR in
accordance with paragraph 6.3(a)5, if:
i. contaminant levels in the sentinel well(s) do not exceed the applicable RAOs at any
time during the monitoring program. The sentinel well is a well or wells down gradient from the plume,
which act(s) as an early detection for the leading edge of the plume from the site being monitored. This
presumes that contaminants transported by groundwater have had sufficient time to reach the well,
allowing for sorptive retardation and other hydrogeological processes that may have slowed their
migration. A proposal regarding the duration of the monitoring program at the sentinel well made by the
remedial party/site owner must be based upon site-specific data;
ii. the contaminant plume length has been demonstrated to be stable or shrinking by
groundwater monitoring. This requires concentration versus distance trend analysis with either suitable
statistical validation or site-specific information for all identified contaminants of concerns; or
iii. the contaminant concentrations along the centerline of the plume have been
demonstrated to be decreasing over time by groundwater monitoring. This requires:
(1) concentration versus time trend analysis, with suitable statistical validation,
for all identified contaminants of concern and a demonstration that groundwater standards are met
before reaching the point of compliance identified for the site; and
(2) a reliable location of the center line of the plume, as such several multi-level
profiles on a transect may be required.
ii. mitigation and monitoring actions to address exposures related to soil vapor
intrusion or POET systems installed in the area of the plume; and/or
iii. other actions that may be required by the SMP to address human exposures or
environmental impacts.
(d) Plume Management Monitoring. PMM is typically reserved for contaminant plumes for which
no feasible remedial option has yet been identified, where hydraulic control of a groundwater plume is
not a feasible option and where the leading edge of a plume is not attenuating in a timely manner and
continues to expand.
1. A PMM remedy tracks a plume to the ultimate point of discharge (e.g., a water body)
based upon fate and transport modeling and an extensive monitoring well network to determine whether:
i. given enough time and distance, the plume may attenuate by dilution and dispersion
and reach apparent stability; and
ii. should stability be confirmed, in accordance with subparagraph 6.4(d)2.i, the PMM
approach may be terminated and an MNA evaluation initiated.
ii. the decision that a plume management strategy is no longer acceptable and another
remedy is required may occur under the following circumstances:
(1) the predictive model cannot be verified or calibrated with the field data from
the monitoring well network;
(2) field data indicates that there is a threat to a receptor identified in the decision
document;
(3) a receptor not previously identified is threatened;
ii. mitigation and monitoring actions to address exposures related to soil vapor
intrusion SVI or POET systems installed in the area of the plume; and/or
iii. other actions that may be required by the SMP to address human exposures or
environmental impacts.
(e) Drinking Water Treatment Systems. The determination that continued operation of a drinking
water treatment system is no longer necessary to provide potable water, and the system can be shut
down, is based upon the evaluation of system performance set forth in this subdivision and applicable
DER guidance. (e.g., DER 24 - Assistance for Contaminated Water Supplies).
(1) remain at or below drinking water standards for four consecutive quarters;
(2) followed by concentrations at or below 50% of the state drinking water
standards for four additional consecutive quarters; and
(3) no taste and/or odors are attributable to the site contamination.
(a) Site closeout occurs when all investigation and/or remediation required for the remedial
program has been completed and the institutional and engineering controls are no longer required.
1. The remedial party or the site owner may petition DER, or DER can independently
initiate site closeout.
2. Site closeout may be initiated when the conditions of section 6.4 have been met for all
remedial processes, including:
v. soil vapor intrusion mitigation measures in accordance with the most recent
NYSDOH guidance; and
vi. other monitoring or maintenance not listed above has been completed as necessary,
on a case-by-case basis.
(b) Final periodic review report. When the conditions noted in subdivision (a) above have been
met, site closeout is documented by preparation of the final PRR, in accordance with 6.3(a)5.
1. The final PRR must include sufficient data tables and graphs to illustrate that the
requirements of section 6.4 have been satisfied.
2. Site closeout may proceed when it has been determined by DER, in accordance with
subdivision 6.3(a)5, that all institutional and/or engineering controls identified for the site are no longer
necessary.
3. Upon DER approval of the final PRR, the remedial process can be discontinued, the
environmental easement extinguished or deed restrictions removed and the site closed out.
4. Electronic submissions. The final PRR and all other required reports and/or
documentation identified by this section must be provided in an electronic format in accordance with
section 1.15.
Overview
A Community Air Monitoring Plan (CAMP) requires real-time monitoring for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and particulates (i.e., dust) at the downwind perimeter of each designated work area
when certain activities are in progress at contaminated sites. The CAMP is not intended for use in
establishing action levels for worker respiratory protection. Rather, its intent is to provide a measure of
protection for the downwind community (i.e., off-site receptors including residences and businesses and
on-site workers not directly involved with the subject work activities) from potential airborne
contaminant releases as a direct result of investigative and remedial work activities. The action levels
specified herein require increased monitoring, corrective actions to abate emissions, and/or work
shutdown. Additionally, the CAMP helps to confirm that work activities did not spread contamination
off-site through the air.
The generic CAMP presented below will be sufficient to cover many, if not most, sites. Specific
requirements should be reviewed for each situation in consultation with NYSDOH to ensure proper
applicability. In some cases, a separate site-specific CAMP or supplement may be required. Depending
upon the nature of contamination, chemical- specific monitoring with appropriately-sensitive methods
may be required. Depending upon the proximity of potentially exposed individuals, more stringent
monitoring or response levels than those presented below may be required. Special requirements will be
necessary for work within 20 feet of potentially exposed individuals or structures and for indoor work
with co-located residences or facilities. These requirements should be determined in consultation with
NYSDOH.
Reliance on the CAMP should not preclude simple, common-sense measures to keep VOCs, dust,
and odors at a minimum around the work areas.
Depending upon the nature of known or potential contaminants at each site, real-time air
monitoring for VOCs and/or particulate levels at the perimeter of the exclusion zone or work area will
be necessary. Most sites will involve VOC and particulate monitoring; sites known to be contaminated
with heavy metals alone may only require particulate monitoring. If radiological contamination is a
concern, additional monitoring requirements may be necessary per consultation with appropriate
DEC/NYSDOH staff.
Continuous monitoring will be required for all ground intrusive activities and during the
demolition of contaminated or potentially contaminated structures. Ground intrusive activities
include, but are not limited to, soil/waste excavation and handling, test pitting or trenching, and the
installation of soil borings or monitoring wells.
Periodic monitoring for VOCs will be required during non-intrusive activities such as the
collection of soil and sediment samples or the collection of groundwater samples from existing
monitoring wells. APeriodic@ monitoring during sample collection might reasonably consist of
taking a reading upon arrival at a sample location, monitoring while opening a well cap or
Final DER-10 Page 204 of 226
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation May 2010
overturning soil, monitoring during well baling/purging, and taking a reading prior to leaving a
sample location. In some instances, depending upon the proximity of potentially exposed
individuals, continuous monitoring may be required during sampling activities. Examples of such
situations include groundwater sampling at wells on the curb of a busy urban street, in the midst of
a public park, or adjacent to a school or residence.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) must be monitored at the downwind perimeter of the
immediate work area (i.e., the exclusion zone) on a continuous basis or as otherwise specified. Upwind
concentrations should be measured at the start of each workday and periodically thereafter to establish
background conditions, particularly if wind direction changes. The monitoring work should be
performed using equipment appropriate to measure the types of contaminants known or suspected to be
present. The equipment should be calibrated at least daily for the contaminant(s) of concern or for an
appropriate surrogate. The equipment should be capable of calculating 15-minute running average
concentrations, which will be compared to the levels specified below.
1. If the ambient air concentration of total organic vapors at the downwind perimeter of the work
area or exclusion zone exceeds 5 parts per million (ppm) above background for the 15-minute average,
work activities must be temporarily halted and monitoring continued. If the total organic vapor level
readily decreases (per instantaneous readings) below 5 ppm over background, work activities can
resume with continued monitoring.
2. If total organic vapor levels at the downwind perimeter of the work area or exclusion zone
persist at levels in excess of 5 ppm over background but less than 25 ppm, work activities must be
halted, the source of vapors identified, corrective actions taken to abate emissions, and monitoring
continued. After these steps, work activities can resume provided that the total organic vapor level 200
feet downwind of the exclusion zone or half the distance to the nearest potential receptor or
residential/commercial structure, whichever is less - but in no case less than 20 feet, is below 5 ppm over
background for the 15-minute average.
3. If the organic vapor level is above 25 ppm at the perimeter of the work area, activities must be
shutdown.
4. All 15-minute readings must be recorded and be available for State (DEC and NYSDOH)
personnel to review. Instantaneous readings, if any, used for decision purposes should also be recorded.
2. If, after implementation of dust suppression techniques, downwind PM-10 particulate levels
are greater than 150 mcg/m3 above the upwind level, work must be stopped and a re-evaluation of
activities initiated. Work can resume provided that dust suppression measures and other controls are
successful in reducing the downwind PM-10 particulate concentration to within 150 mcg/m3 of the
upwind level and in preventing visible dust migration.
3. All readings must be recorded and be available for State (DEC and NYSDOH) and County
Health personnel to review.
December 2009
A program for suppressing fugitive dust and particulate matter monitoring at hazardous waste sites
is a responsibility on the remedial party performing the work. These procedures must be incorporated
into appropriate intrusive work plans. The following fugitive dust suppression and particulate
monitoring program should be employed at sites during construction and other intrusive activities which
warrant its use:
1. Reasonable fugitive dust suppression techniques must be employed during all site activities
which may generate fugitive dust.
2. Particulate monitoring must be employed during the handling of waste or contaminated soil or
when activities on site may generate fugitive dust from exposed waste or contaminated soil. Remedial
activities may also include the excavation, grading, or placement of clean fill. These control measures
should not be considered necessary for these activities.
3. Particulate monitoring must be performed using real-time particulate monitors and shall
monitor particulate matter less than ten microns (PM10) with the following minimum performance
standards:
4. In order to ensure the validity of the fugitive dust measurements performed, there must be
appropriate Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC). It is the responsibility of the remedial party to
adequately supplement QA/QC Plans to include the following critical features: periodic instrument
calibration, operator training, daily instrument performance (span) checks, and a record keeping plan.
5. The action level will be established at 150 ug/m3 (15 minutes average). While conservative,
6. It must be recognized that the generation of dust from waste or contaminated soil that
migrates off-site, has the potential for transporting contaminants off-site. There may be situations when
dust is being generated and leaving the site and the monitoring equipment does not measure PM10 at or
above the action level. Since this situation has the potential to allow for the migration of contaminants
off-site, it is unacceptable. While it is not practical to quantify total suspended particulates on a real-time
basis, it is appropriate to rely on visual observation. If dust is observed leaving the working site,
additional dust suppression techniques must be employed. Activities that have a high dusting potential--
such as solidification and treatment involving materials like kiln dust and lime--will require the need for
special measures to be considered.
7. The following techniques have been shown to be effective for the controlling of the
generation and migration of dust during construction activities:
Experience has shown that the chance of exceeding the 150ug/m3 action level is remote when the
above-mentioned techniques are used. When techniques involving water application are used, care must
be taken not to use excess water, which can result in unacceptably wet conditions. Using atomizing
sprays will prevent overly wet conditions, conserve water, and provide an effective means of
suppressing the fugitive dust.
8. The evaluation of weather conditions is necessary for proper fugitive dust control. When
extreme wind conditions make dust control ineffective, as a last resort remedial actions may need to be
suspended. There may be situations that require fugitive dust suppression and particulate monitoring
requirements with action levels more stringent than those provided above. Under some circumstances,
the contaminant concentration and/or toxicity may require additional monitoring to protect site
personnel and the public. Additional integrated sampling and chemical analysis of the dust may also be
in order. This must be evaluated when a health and safety plan is developed and when appropriate
suppression and monitoring requirements are established for protection of health and the environment.
In accordance with section 1.10, exemptions from the following permit programs may be granted to the
person responsible for conducting the remedial programs undertaken pursuant to section 1.2:
Purpose
This Appendix identifies the role of field-testing technologies in the investigation and remediation
of contaminated sites and the conditions under which the data generated by the field testing method may
be used to make project decisions. While DER encourages the use field-testing technologies, data upon
which decisions impacting human health are based must be confirmed by a laboratory certified by the
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) to analyze environmental samples.
Background
Section 502.2 of the Public Health Law requires the use of accredited laboratories for the analysis
of all environmental samples in New York. Laboratories meet requirements in a specific analytical
method can become accredited for that method through NYSDOH=s Environmental Laboratory
Accreditation Program (ELAP). Although field-testing technologies have not been approved through the
ELAP, NYSDOH acknowledges the need and benefit of the use of such field-testing technologies in
conjunction with ELAP-certified methods.
For purposes of this Appendix, a field-testing technology means any field-deployable tool or
technique that provides real-time or near real-time environmental data. Examples include immunoassay
or other colorimetric test kits, portable gas chromatography with any of a variety of detectors, x-ray
fluorescence analyzers, and direct-sensing, down-hole devices such as the membrane interface probe.
Quick turn-around analysis using a modified analytical method at a fixed or mobile laboratory is also
considered to be a field-testing technology, unless the laboratory is ELAP-accredited to analyze samples
by that method.
Use of field-testing technologies by skilled technicians, in conjunction with rapid data interpretation
and analysis by the project management team, can improve confidence in project decisions while
significantly reducing the costs and time needed to investigate and remediate sites. Real-time
measurements using field-testing technologies are generally less-expensive and quicker (on a per sample
basis) than comparable laboratory analyses, making it feasible to increase the sampling density and
improve sample representativeness. More timely and cost-effective decision-making can also result in a
site being fully-characterized in one deployment while the sampling team is still mobilized instead of
conducting the investigation in several phases over a longer period of time.
How should field-testing technologies be used as part of expedited site investigation or the Triad
Approach?
The use of field-testing technologies is one part of an expedited site characterization process. This
process has also been called the Triad Approach. It combines systematic project planning, dynamic work
strategies, and the use of field-testing technologies. Systematic project planning ensures that the goals
for the characterization are known prior to the start of the project. A dynamic work strategy allows
experienced members of the field team to modify site activities based on results of prior sampling on a
near real-time basis. The use of field-testing technologies allows for the generation, review, and
interpretation of real-time (or near real-time) data in the field and the continuation of sampling until the
investigation objectives are met.
Using the Triad Approach, decisions on where to sample next are based on an evolving conceptual
site model that is constantly being updated with data generated in the field. By increasing the number of
samples and attaining a higher spatial density, errors attributed to sample representativeness are reduced.
Because of the analytical uncertainty inherent in these technologies, the recommended approach is to
use field-testing technologies and ELAP-accredited laboratory analyses in a collaborative effort that
accounts for both their strengths and weaknesses to improve overall data quality and confidence in
decision-making.
All QC measures specified by the testing method and by the regulatory agencies must be followed
to demonstrate that the method is working properly. A standard operating procedure (SOP) must be
included in the sampling plan that details the step-by-step procedures to follow and includes all quality
assurance parameters (e.g., calibration standards, blanks, duplicates, and matrix spikes). Documentation
on the field instruments and methodologies used should also be included that describes its maintenance
history and record of calibrations as well as an assessment of the precision, accuracy, and false
interferences associated with the test.
Equally as important as following the written procedures is assembling a field team with enough
experience, and to select the appropriate test method for conditions specific to the site. Field-testing
technologies should only be used by technicians or field analysts that have been documented as being
trained and experienced in the use of the specific field-testing equipment. Personnel responsible for
making field decisions should also have documented experience developing and refining conceptual site
models and collecting representative samples in order to expedite the field investigation phase and
improve the project team=s understanding of the site. The project work plans therefore should also
include the qualifications and training of the field technicians who will be collecting the samples and
performing the tests as well as those of the project team leader responsible for making field decisions.
Based on Section 502 of the Public Health Law, data upon which decisions impacting human health
are based must be confirmed by an ELAP-accredited laboratory, accordingly confirmation and
documentation samples will require analysis by an ELAP-accredited laboratory. The laboratory should
be requested to provide DEC ASP Category B deliverables for confirmation sample results. An
associated Data Usability Summary Report (DUSR) must be prepared by a qualified and approved data
validator and submitted along with the results.
Conclusion
The appropriate use of field-testing technology can lead to more cost-effective site investigation and
will lead to sites being investigated and remediated more quickly. The key issues are the selection of the
appropriate field method, deployment of the method by well-trained and experienced field personnel,
and adherence to standard operating procedures and QC requirements appropriate to the field test
method.
1. A Category A Data Deliverable as described in the most current DEC Analytical Services
Protocol (ASP) includes:
2. For a DEC Category A Data Deliverable, a data applicability report may be requested, in
which case it will be prepared, to the extent possible, in accordance with the DUSR guidance detailed
below.
1. A Category B Data Deliverable is includes the information provided for the Category A
Data Deliverable, identified in subdivision (a) above, plus related QA/QC information and
documentation consisting of:
i. calibration standards;
v. duplicate results;
viii. chromatograms;
2. A DEC Category B Data Deliverable is required for the development of a Data Usability
Summary Report (DUSR).
(a) Background. The Data Usability Summary Report (DUSR) provides a thorough evaluation of
analytical data with the primary objective to determine whether or not the data, as presented, meets the
site/project specific criteria for data quality and data use.
ii. the USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Data Validation
Standard Operating Procedures for Data Evaluation and Validation.
2. The DUSR and the data deliverables package will be reviewed by DER staff. If full third
party data validation is found to be necessary (e.g. pending litigation) this can be carried out at a later
date on the same data package used for the development of the DUSR.
(b) Personnel Requirements. The person preparing the DUSR must be pre-approved by DER. The
person must submit their qualifications to DER documenting experience in analysis and data validation.
Data validator qualifications are available on DEC’s website identified in the table of contents.
(c) Preparation of a DUSR. The DUSR is developed by reviewing and evaluating the analytical
data package. In order for the DUSR to be acceptable, during the course of this review the following
questions applicable to the analysis being reviewed must be answered in the affirmative.
1. Is the data package complete as defined under the requirements for the most current DEC
ASP Category B or USEPA CLP data deliverables?
4. Have all of the data been generated using established and agreed upon analytical
protocols?
5. Does an evaluation of the raw data confirm the results provided in the data summary
sheets and quality control verification forms?
7. Have any quality control (QC) exceedances been specifically noted in the DUSR and
have the corresponding QC summary sheets from the data package been attached to the DUSR?
(d) Documenting the validation process in the DUSR. Once the data package has been reviewed
and the above questions asked and answered the DUSR proceeds to describe the samples and the
analytical parameters, including data deficiencies, analytical protocol deviations and quality control
problems are identified and their effect on the data is discussed.
(a) The first phase of a site characterization (SC) should be a records search based on diligent
inquiry. A phase 1 report, prepared prior to a site entering one of the DER remedial programs identified
in section 1.2, may be provided in lieu of a records search report, provided it was prepared in accordance
with applicable ASTM guidance for preparation of Phase 1 reports. A records search report should
include the following:
1. Historical information concerning the site history should be part of the site assessment.
Historical information is not required if the investigation is directed at either a specific discharge event
(rather than a particular area of concern) or any underground tank or underground tank system unless
directed by DEC. The site history should include an evaluation of the following to the extent available
from diligent inquiry:
i. site history information from sources including, but not limited to, the following:
ii. the industrial/commercial site history from the time the site was naturally vegetated
or utilized as farmland, including without limitation:
iii. all raw materials, finished products, formulations and hazardous substances,
hazardous wastes, and petroleum products which are or were present on the site, including intermediates
and by-products;
iv. present and past production processes, including dates, and their respective water
use should be identified and evaluated, including ultimate and potential discharge and disposal points
and how and where materials are or were received onsite (for example, rail, truck);
v. all former and current containers, container or bulk storage areas, above and below
ground tanks, above and below ground waste and product delivery lines, surface impoundments,
landfills, septic systems and other structures, vessels, conveyances or units that contain or previously
contained hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and petroleum products, including:
vi. an interpretation of the aerial photographic history of the site, based on available
current and historical color, black and white and infrared aerial photographs (scale 1:17.,000 or less) of
the site and surrounding area at a frequency which provides the evaluator with a historical perspective of
site activities. The photographic history should date back to 1932 or to the earliest photograph available.
vii. any data or information concerning known discharges that have occurred on the
site;
ix. all remedies previously approved by DEC in a remedial action work plan or
decision document to determine if the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment;
xi. any known changes in site conditions or new information developed since
completion of previous sampling or remediation;
xii. all Federal, State and local environmental permits including permits for all previous
and current owners or operators, applied for or received, or both, for the site including the:
xiii. all administrative, civil and criminal enforcement actions for alleged violations of
environmental laws concerning the site, including:
xiv. all areas where non-indigenous fill materials were used to replace soil or raise the
topographic elevation of the site, including the dates of emplacement, where reasonably available,
paying particular attention to potential areas of concern as identified in section 1.7.
2. The person conducting the records search should conduct a site visit to verify the findings
in paragraph (a)1 above. Where site conditions are not already well known, appropriate monitoring
instruments such as Organic Vapor Analyers (Photo Ionization Detectors, explosimeters), oxygen
detectors and radiation detectors should be used to assure personal safety and assist with SC.
3. Interviews are to be utilized, where appropriate, taking into consideration the following
factors relative to who to interview, how and when they should be conducted:
i. interviews with facility personnel (past and present), adjoining property owners,
and persons familiar with past activities at the site can be useful in determining if and where hazardous
waste/substances, or petroleum products were disposed of at the site and what exposure pathways are
likely to be at risk. Information obtained during the interview process can supplement other means used
in the investigation. However, if the information is crucial to the determination that hazardous
waste/substances or petroleum products were disposed of at the site, the documentation outlined in 3.iv
(below) is required;
iii. interviews may be conducted prior to, during or after the site reconnaissance, as
convenient to the project manager;
iv. interviews must be documented with the date and signature of the person granting
the interview. At the end of the interview the person should read and be asked then and there to sign and
date the transcript. In cases where a telephone interview was conducted, the project manager should
determine during that conversation if the person is willing to sign his/her statements. If so, the project
manager will send a transcript to that person for signature thus verifying the conversation. In the case
where the person interviewed is unwilling to sign a transcript, or the consultant, after making a
reasonable effort (mailing a transcript with a follow-up letter requesting the return), is unable to obtain
the person's signature on the transcript, then this statement should not be used or referenced in the
report. The person's name, however should be listed in the references section of the report as being
contacted during the investigation;
(b) The records search report is prepared in accordance with section 3.12.
The overall purpose of the Qualitative Human Health Exposure Assessment (or the exposure
assessment) is to evaluate and document how people might be exposed to site-related contaminants, and to
identify and characterize the potentially exposed population(s) now and under the reasonably anticipated
future use of the site. To evaluate if an exposure pathway exists, the exposure assessment must assess the
quality, representativeness and adequacy of the available data. For instance, field data quality, laboratory
data quality, and sampling designs need to be appropriate to meet data quality objectives (e.g., detection
limits and minimum reporting limits must be appropriate for the evaluation of human exposures).
In addition, the qualitative exposure assessment must consider the nature of populations currently
exposed or that have the potential to be exposed to site related contaminants both on- and off-site, and must
describe the reasonably anticipated future land use of the site and affected off-site areas. To conduct this
evaluation, in addition to collection of on-site data, some off-site field investigation to identify and sample
any potential areas of contamination in support of the exposure assessment may be necessary.
At a minimum, the exposure assessment must evaluate the five elements associated with exposure
pathways, and describe how each of these elements pertains to the site being evaluated. The exposure
pathway elements that must be addressed, include:
(1) a description of the contaminant source(s) including the location of the contaminant release to the
environment (any waste disposal area or point of discharge) or if the original source is unknown, the
contaminated environmental medium (soil, indoor or outdoor air, biota, water) at the point of exposure;
(2) an explanation of the contaminant release and transport mechanisms to the exposed population;
(3) identification of all potential exposure point(s) where actual or potential human contact with a
contaminated medium may occur;
(4) description(s) of the route(s) of exposure (i.e., ingestion, inhalation, dermal absorption); and
(5) a characterization of the receptor populations who may be exposed to contaminants at a point of
exposure.
An exposure pathway is complete when all five elements of an exposure pathway are documented; a
potential exposure pathway exists when any one or more of the five elements comprising an exposure
pathway is not known. An exposure pathway may be eliminated from further evaluation when any one of
the five elements comprising an exposure pathway has not existed in the past, does not exist in the present,
and can reasonably be anticipated to never exist in the future.
Qualitative exposure assessments that are provided in work plans and reports should include the
following summary table to provide an overview of the current and potential exposures for the specific site.
Examples of how the assessments should be summarized are included in the table below.
2. Is the site or area of concern a point source of contamination to the groundwater which will be 13 3
prevented from discharging to surface water? Soil contamination is not widespread, or if
widespread, is confined under buildings and paved areas.
3. Is the site and all adjacent property a developed area with buildings, paved surfaces and little 4 9
or no vegetation?
4. Does the site contain habitat of an endangered, threatened or special concern species? Section 5
3.10.1
6. Is there any discharge or erosion of contamination to surface water or the potential for 7 14
discharge or erosion of contamination?
7. Are the site contaminants PCBs, pesticides or other persistent, bioaccumulable substances? Section 8
3.10.1
8. Does contamination exist at concentrations that could exceed ecological impact SCGs or be Section 14
toxic to aquatic life if discharged to surface water? 3.10.1
9. Does the site or any adjacent or downgradient property contain any of the following 11 10
resources?
i. Any endangered, threatened or special concern species or rare plants or their habitat
ii. Any DEC designated significant habitats or rare NYS Ecological Communities
iii. Tidal or freshwater wetlands
iv. Stream, creek or river
v. Pond, lake, lagoon
vi. Drainage ditch or channel
vii. Other surface water feature
viii. Other marine or freshwater habitat
ix. Forest
x. Grassland or grassy field
xi. Parkland or woodland
xii. Shrubby area
xiii. Urban wildlife habitat
xiv. Other terrestrial habitat
11. Is the contamination a localized source which has not migrated and will not migrate from the 14 12
source to impact any on-site or off-site resources?
12. Does the site have widespread surface soil contamination that is not confined under and Section 12
around buildings or paved areas? 3.10.1
13. Does the contamination at the site or area of concern have the potential to migrate to, erode Section 14
into or otherwise impact any on-site or off-site habitat of endangered, threatened or special 3.10.1
concern species or other fish and wildlife resource? (See #9 for list of potential resources.
Contact DEC for information regarding endangered species.)
(a) When developing and evaluating remedial alternatives, the following considerations should be
incorporated into remedy selection, as appropriate.
1. Has the information collected in the FWRIA Part 1 and 2 been incorporated into the
development of alternatives?
2. Have actual or potential adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources been identified?
4. Have remedial action objectives been established for the contaminants of ecological concern
and the protection of the impacted resources?
5. Have ecologically based cleanup levels been identified and the alternatives evaluated in
terms of the ability to meet ecologically based cleanup levels?
6. Have the alternatives been evaluated in terms of the expected reduction in the toxicity or
bioaccumulation of contaminants?
7. If human health based or other SCGs are proposed as cleanup levels, will the adverse impacts
to fish and wildlife resources be eliminated or adequately mitigated?
8. Have alternatives been evaluated in terms of contaminant-related impacts that would remain
after implementation?
9. Does the recommended alternative eliminate or adequately mitigate the adverse impacts to
fish and wildlife resources? If not, why not?
11. Have the alternatives been evaluated in terms of the non-contaminant related effects such as
temporary and/or permanent loss of, or damage to the resource during implementation?
12. Has the remedial alternative that best maintains or restores fish and wildlife resources been
identified? Has an alternative been included that maximizes the acreage of habitat remediated?
13. Has the need for a post-remedial monitoring program (including biological monitoring) been
identified? Is a conceptual monitoring program included which can evaluate the long term effectiveness of
the remediation?
(b) The above will be incorporated into the remedy selection report for the site prepared in
accordance with section 4.4.
Source: This table is derived from soil cleanup objective (SCO) tables in 6 NYCRR 375. Table 375-6.8(a) is the source for
unrestricted use and Table 375-6.8(b) is the source for restricted use.
Note: For constituents not included in this table, refer to the contaminant for supplemental soil cleanup objectives (SSCOs) in
the Commissioner Policy on Soil Cleanup Guidance. If an SSCO is not provided for a constituent, contact the DER PM to
determine a site-specific level.
Footnotes:
1
The SCO for Hexavalent or Trivalent Chromium is considered to be met if the analysis for the total species of this
contaminant is below the specific SCO for Hexavalent Chromium.
2
The SCO is the sum of endosulfan I, endosulfan II and endosulfan sulfate.
3
For constituents where the calculated SCO was lower than the contract required quantitation limit (CRQL), the CRQL is
used as the Track 1 SCO value.
4
This SCO is derived from data on mixed isomers of BHC.